Help Stamp Out Language Abuse
by Matt Kaufman on 11/10/2009 at 12:23 PM
A few days ago, Ted did a post about grammatical abominations like "I could care less." I wanna play too. Only with a twist. I don't want to talk about grammar. I want to talk about the most abused words in the language -- the ones that have had their proper meaning most badly warped.
Take "adult" -- as in "adult movie." Could you get the meaning of the word more backwards? A Calvin and Hobbes strip captured it best. Calvin's looking at an ad for a movie with "adult situations" and wonders what that means. Hobbes speculates: "Probably things like going to work, paying bills and taxes, taking responsibilities...." (Then Hobbes wonders how these movies make any money.)
Or take "lovers." Typically, that means people having sex who aren't married -- at least not to each other. But what's love -- real love, not lust or passion -- got to do with that? The proper, non-prettified language here would be (to haul out some useful, biblical-style words) "fornicators" or "adulterers." Real love flows from God's love; it doesn't fly in the face of His Word.
Your turn. What language abuse bugs you most?
1. Brittany said the following at 12:48 PM on Nov 10:
Wow, Matt! I never thought of 'adult' that way. I'm really glad you brought that up.
I really dislike how people just throw 'love' around. I've had friends tell me they love me after being my friend for a week. I do appreciate the sentiment but love implies something so much deeper. I hold deep love for my friend Megan because I know that I am committed to being her friend even when I don't feel like it...even when she ticks me off and I know she feels the same way. It's love! I wish people would hold their 'love' to a higher standard.
2. Doris said the following at 12:50 PM on Nov 10:
Thank you for this! You're right on!
Calling illegal immigrants "undocumented workers" really bugs me too. As does the politically correct term for terrorism - "man-made disasters".
3. DannieA said the following at 12:56 PM on Nov 10:
some oxymorons drive me batty....I don't know why but i don't like the term
"act naturally"
....well if you're being natural you're certainly not acting, and if you 'acting' then you're really not natural.
I could go on, but that's one I've never gotton. It doesn't help me at all when I'm nervous.
4. Aeryn said the following at 1:03 PM on Nov 10:
Although I am not a Christian, I really get confused and a little upset when I hear or read about Christians "staying pure until marriage." Does that mean that sex within marriage makes one just as impure as fornication? If so, given the way that the legal and societal definitions of "marriage" have changed over the years...purity is a slippery concept. Which is too bad. If the idea is that sex within marriage is holy and blessed, why would Christians ever say "pure until marriage" Or "stay pure until their wedding night," etc.? It makes it sound like Christianity holds ALL sex to be dirty, but you'll allow this one type of dirt just so long as there's a wedding first. Sad, really.
5. Louise from Chicago said the following at 1:11 PM on Nov 10:
Re referring to people as "fornicators/adulterers"....the posters on this blog seem to be unaware that most of the people in this world do not have a biblical worldview and as such don't judge other people for their private behavior, at least not by referring to them using judgemental names.
The "adult" example from Calvin and Hobbes is somewhat humorous though.
6. Ted Slater said the following at 1:19 PM on Nov 10:
Aeryn (#4) -- nah, it's just a shorthand way of unmarried people pledging to remain sexually pure throughout their single years. I suppose it would be more accurate to say "staying pure, up to marriage and beyond."
Of course Christianity does not hold that all sex is dirty. God invented it. It's very good, but like most things can be perverted.
I guess I do agree that the phrase "pure until marriage" is silly, but I wouldn't read as much into it as you seem to be doing. Certainly I wouldn't let it make me "sad." :-)
7. Ted Slater said the following at 1:23 PM on Nov 10:
Louise from Chicago (#5) -- the words "fornication" and "adultery" are not merely biblical concepts. Both words are found in the dictionary, and have straightforward definitions. They imply no "judgmentalism," but simply refer to particular behaviors.
8. Aeryn said the following at 1:31 PM on Nov 10:
Thanks, Ted. I'm glad you see it that way. The absolute ubiquity with which I hear that sentiment, though (including in many Christian books I've read and at a few sermons I've sat through, as recently as earlier this year) tells me that not everyone agrees with you. I guess I should have said "Some Christians" instead of "Christianity" holds all sex to be dirty.....
9. dasiopa said the following at 1:36 PM on Nov 10:
Hypocrisy -- the definition has become as broad as "saying one thing and doing another." You know, like saying baseball is fun, and then running off to the soccer field. Hypocrite!
10. Louise from Chicago said the following at 1:55 PM on Nov 10:
Comment 7, go back and read the original post please.
Mr. Kaufman used the terms "fornicators" and "adulterers" to specifically refer to people.
He did not speak of "fornication" and "adultery" as behaviors.
11. BJ said the following at 2:04 PM on Nov 10:
I hate that the word "judgmental" has become negative. Since when is discernment and recognizing right from wrong a bad thing?
12. BJ said the following at 2:07 PM on Nov 10:
Louise...participants in the acts of fornication and adultery ARE fornicators and adulterers.
It's like saying "He's a painter" instead of saying "He is one who paints."
13. rushncap said the following at 2:13 PM on Nov 10:
Matt -- what bothers me is when people use the term "Christian" when they mean "nosy and judgemental". For example, see your own post.
Ted -- just because people don't adhere to your own, ultra-narrow definition of the term "love" does not mean that the use of the term is incorrect. The term "fornicator" is a loaded one precisely for the reason that it implies that we all should share your own particular sexual predelictions. That's like a Muslim complaining that we use the term "atheist" or "Christian" when we actually mean "infidel". After all, that would be the non politically correct usage, right? As for adulterer, yes that is still used a lot.
14. Nicole said the following at 2:15 PM on Nov 10:
I've personally never thought of the word "lovers" as anything being strictly non-married couples. I think it can be both and still be accurate, in that particular use of the word.
Its a shame that words like "Gay" and "Queer" were hijacked as homosexual slang, because that's not at all their true meaning.
15. Louise from Chicago said the following at 2:25 PM on Nov 10:
Comment 12, comment 7 all but declared that the mention of "fornicators or adulterors" in the original post referred to behaviors, not people.
As I have already clearly stated in comment 10, Mr. Kaufman was specifically stating how to refer to certain people, NOT the behaviors of certain people!
16. Michela said the following at 2:26 PM on Nov 10:
I just hate the word "moist."
Not because it's misused, just because it's gross sounding and you practically have to chew it to say it.
17. rushncap said the following at 2:28 PM on Nov 10:
I also completely agree with the whole "adult" euphemism. Let's just call it the way it's supposed to be called: "sex". However, I think it's actually the fault of conservative Christians that the word "sex" had to be replaced by a rather dumb euphemism. And yes, rather than "adult movie" we can all call it "porn".
18. Autumn said the following at 2:34 PM on Nov 10:
Take "adult" -- as in "adult movie." Could you get the meaning of the word more backwards?
How about "gentleman" (as in "gentlemen's club")?
The word "mature" (as in "for mature viewers") can be used to denote that a subject matter is distressing but more often seems to refer to shows that are sensationalistic and needlessly graphic.
19. B. Minich said the following at 2:40 PM on Nov 10:
One that bugs me is seeing movies rated PG-13 (or R, or whatever) for "language", or when talking about whether to see a particular movie, mentioning that it might not be a good idea because the movie contains "language".
Really? The movie has language, eh? Are they speaking English, or some other language?
I mean, the only movies without language are the old silent movies (and then only if they didn't have captions).
Can't we be more specific? It takes only one more sylable to say "bad language".
20. michael said the following at 2:48 PM on Nov 10:
language abuse. I can think of a few that really annoy me:
1. "inclusive" as in, "we belong to an inclusive church." Truly inclusive groups are composed of people ascribing to both sides of an issue. These days "inclusive" means something closer to "people who agree with my liberal point of view."
2. diverse. Used in a similar fashion as "inclusive." Often used to mean, "people who agree with my point of view but look different."
3. Tolerance. Often coupled with "inclusive" and "diverse" where the diversity and inclusiveness are used as proof of their tolerance of others. The problem is, when I've explained my theological and political p.o.v. to people from this perspective, it rapidly becomes obvious that I'm not welcome in their group. So "tolerance" in this case is applied only to "people who agree with me and my various agendas."
The big problem with all three of these usages is that the person using them becomes the only "good" person and their agendas are the only possible "right" ones. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, except that this use of language ignores my p.o.v. and legislation built on these usages could turn me into a -ist and -phobe of various kinds, which would then be punishable by law.
21. Nancy said the following at 2:54 PM on Nov 10:
What's wrong with "undocumented worker" as opposed to illegal immigrant? (#2)
22. Jason said the following at 2:57 PM on Nov 10:
This didn't make me think about word misuse nearly as much as it reminded me how much I enjoyed Calvin and Hobbes and wish something like it were still around.
23. Thomas Jeffries said the following at 2:57 PM on Nov 10:
Rushncap (#13), please see the first comment from BJ (#11).
Thank you.
24. Ultraviolet said the following at 3:12 PM on Nov 10:
So...you're proposing that we stop language from being nuanced and evolving? That's what language does, that's what it *is*. Good luck on keeping it static. : /
25. Sel said the following at 3:16 PM on Nov 10:
I work at a place that publishes Christian literature. Unfortunately, our editor did not catch a sentence that referred to "the intimacy and personal touch between youth leader and students." OUCH. Seemingly harmless words...hijacked by culture and twisted context. :oP
26. Anon said the following at 3:19 PM on Nov 10:
I don't like the way that "affair" is used when people cheat on each other. Just call it what it is.
27. Mike Toreno said the following at 3:22 PM on Nov 10:
"Pro-life".
28. Rachelle said the following at 3:22 PM on Nov 10:
Impactful. Not a word.
An human. No, it's not a silent H.
29. BJ said the following at 3:33 PM on Nov 10:
Nancy asked, "What's wrong with "undocumented worker" as opposed to illegal immigrant? (#2)"
Well, for starters, not everyone who has entered the country illegally is working.
Perhaps we should identify them more clearly: they are criminals.
30. Jake said the following at 3:39 PM on Nov 10:
I don't like when people use impact in place of affect. Unfortunately, impact has been abused so much many dictionaries have been updated to include a verb definition for it.
I also don't like it when people say males or females when they mean to say men or women. Male and female are pronouns. Historically these words were only used as nouns to refer to organisms other than human beings. Using these terms is dehumanizing.
31. Megan said the following at 4:00 PM on Nov 10:
"dinner" is actually the early evening meal and NOT the noon meal.
"Like" when not being used as a comparison, "She, like, said this or that, like this way that was totally, like, not even . . ."
I'd say, "She articulates her thoughts like a junior high student."
Mispronounced words bother just as much:
nuclear /noo-clee-er/ pronounced /nook-ya-ler/
pillow /pill-oh/ pronounced /pell=oh/
water /wah-ter/ pronounced /wor-der/
For Heaven's sake get your pins and pens right! A pin can hold things together. A pen can hold things in; however, you can't use a pin write about the pig in the pen.
Look up the words schmuck, putz, and dork before you use them as terms of endearment.
Roar! (that's an onomatopoeia)
32. Lost in the World said the following at 4:21 PM on Nov 10:
Louise from Chicago @ 5:
"the posters on this blog seem to be unaware that most of the people in this world do not have a biblical worldview and as such don't judge other people for their private behavior, at least not by referring to them using judgemental names."
That's not so much true, as false. When Europe is removed from the picture, and Africa, Asia, and South America are counted the vast, beyond vast, beyond, beyond vast majority of people have strong views about cheating and the sanctity of the pair bond. In fact there is no real culture that doesn't (any claim to such a culture, say in Polynesia, has been so thoroughly debunked by anthropology as to require no substantive comment).
Aeryn @ 8:
"guess I should have said "Some Christians" instead of "Christianity" holds all sex to be dirty....."
Totally agree with you. Sadly, some Christians do hold sex to be dirty even in marriage in complete contravention of the Bible...
Mike Toreno @ 27:
"Pro-life".
"Pro-Choice".
And finally (cause I wanna play too) irregardless. Yuck.
33. Anon said the following at 4:23 PM on Nov 10:
@31
Would it annoy you that for nuclear I say "new-clee-er"? I don't think I know anyone who says it noo!
34. Josh said the following at 4:43 PM on Nov 10:
1. Using "begs the question" when you mean "raises the question".
2. "Deceptively". Because nobody knows what it means. E.g., "He was deceptively tall". He was taller than expected? Shorter?
35. Inigo said the following at 5:09 PM on Nov 10:
"Inconceivable!" My boss says this all the time and it's driving me nuts. I do not think he knows what it means.
36. Peter said the following at 5:11 PM on Nov 10:
I haven't checked all of the replied, but I'd like to add the phrase "de facto marraige" to the list of common lies.
The arrangements so described lack some of the essential ingedients of marraig, and so are not "in fact" marraiges.
37. rushncap said the following at 5:39 PM on Nov 10:
Thomas -- I saw. There is a difference between being judgmental and "recognizing right from wrong". The difference is that in one case you say "I think that is wrong, but it's your life, you may do as you please" (recognition), in the other "You are wrong and therefore evil therefore I must stop you" (judgmental).
BJ -- you're a criminal too, but we don't call you that to your face.
38. Megan said the following at 5:46 PM on Nov 10:
Ok #27, how about "pro-choice". Choice? I hope they call it pro-choice when I go out and abort my neighbor's life with a vacuum cleaner.
39. Allison said the following at 6:37 PM on Nov 10:
I have recently taken to finding the misuse of bad(ly) something of a pet peeve. Adverbs are wonderful parts of speech - if people would just use them. *sigh*
40. Kelly-1 said the following at 6:46 PM on Nov 10:
Entree.
In the US, it is understood as the main meal.
In the rest of the world (and the original French) it means appetizer.
(Yes, I have been involved in arguments over this!)
41. Peter said the following at 7:20 PM on Nov 10:
Yes, language changes. This does not mean that *any* change in language is appropriate.
A common one is the deliberate choice of emotive terms with a negative connotation that is not justified by the subject. In that it makes a moral judgement on the subject's motivation, such language is actually a personal attack.
One such is "cruel", applied to anything which causes discomfort or pain. If this were true, then doctors, dentists and physiotherapists are "cruel". But they are not, because cruelty includes not just the infliction of pain but the *intent* to cause pain and the *enjoyment* of causing pain. It is not cruel when the pain is merely incidental, whether the issue is dentistry, childbirth, hunting or some normal farming practices.
Another is labelling any person holding the belief that homosexual behaviour is immoral, a Homophobe. . (Note, a "phobia" is an irrational fear.)
The misuse of emotive terms has become so common that it has resulted an a number of sarcastic "definitions", of which the following are examples.
Chauvinist: Any man winning an argument with a women.
Sexist: see "chauvinist".
Racist: any person of anglo/european descent winning an argument with a person of another race.
Insensitive: Any person speaking truth that I don't want to hear.
42. farmer Tom said the following at 7:30 PM on Nov 10:
#31 Megan said,
"dinner" is actually the early evening meal and NOT the noon meal.
I'm sorry to inform you, but you are in fact incorrect.
from Dic.com
supper
noun
1. the evening meal, often the principal meal of the day.
As in, the Last Supper which the Lord and His disciples ate in the evening before they went out to the garden to pray.
from word history
dinner
Middle English diner not only meant "breakfast" but, echoing usage of the Old French word diner, more commonly meant "the first big meal of the day, usually eaten between 9 A.M. and noon.
from word origin
dinner
1297, from O.Fr. disner, originally "breakfast," later "lunch," noun use of infinitive disner (see dine). Always used in Eng. for the main meal of the day; shift from midday to evening began with the fashionable classes.
Breakfast is the meal in the morning which the farmer eats before or after he goes out to do the chores around the farm yard. Usually eaten before the sun comes up.
Morning lunch is fresh baked cookies and coffee(yick) or maybe some lemonade.
Dinner is the noon meal when the entire farm crew and family gathers around the large dining room table and eats fried chicken with mashed potatoes and chicken gravy, green beans, fresh baked bread, followed up by apple pie with ice cream.
Afternoon lunch is the remainder of the apple pie, with another cup of coffee(yick), or if you are an addict like me, Mt. Dew.
Supper is eaten in the evening after the farmer comes in from his days work.
Usually is consists of leftovers or soups and sandwiches.
All you hoy toy citified elitists, who never actually worked with your hands, seem to think that after a hard day of sitting on your posterior at a desk, you can hijack the language and call the evening meal, dinner. This is only because you worthless lazy bums haven't worked hard enough all day to have a large meal until the entire day is over. The working men of the world on the other hand got more accomplished before noon than you did all day. Therefore they eat a large noon meal and call it dinner so that they can have enough energy to do another of your days work in the afternoon.
Since Biblical times the evening meal has been supper. Therefore it can not be dinner. You are incorrect.
43. BDB said the following at 8:19 PM on Nov 10:
#35 - :D
I miss Calvin and Hobbes, too. I worked for the University Chaplain, who suggested that the cartoon was loosely based on the theories of John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes.
I especially liked the one where the dad said he was dictator-for-life, and Calvin responded by saying, "So, the only hope for change is violent revolution and exile?"
I also like the one where they said "SMOCK."
44. BDB said the following at 8:20 PM on Nov 10:
SMOCK SMOCK SMOCK SMOCK SMOCK
45. BDB said the following at 8:22 PM on Nov 10:
Hey, how about 2nd Breakfast?
And then there's the part about how Tea in the U.S. is something you drink, but in Australia and the UK, it involves food...
46. Benjamin said the following at 8:34 PM on Nov 10:
"This is only because you worthless lazy bums haven't worked hard enough all day to have a large meal until the entire day is over. The working men of the world on the other hand got more accomplished before noon than you did all day. Therefore they eat a large noon meal and call it dinner so that they can have enough energy to do another of your days work in the afternoon."
"All you hoy toy citified elitists..."
We are the elistists? Sounds like someone has a bit of a chip on his shoulder. I for one welcome the benefits of civilization that those of us with high school educations can enjoy.
(said all in good fun, in case it comes across as mean)
47. Louise from Chicago said the following at 8:49 PM on Nov 10:
Comment 32, I stand by my opinion that most people have a secular worldview and as such do not refer to other people by judgemental names, even if they don't approve of another person's behavior.
And what the heck does so called "fornication" have to do with "cheating and the sancitity of the pair bond?"
I know you people believe that unless there is a public marriage, there is no "pair bond."
48. Kelsey said the following at 9:07 PM on Nov 10:
For those of you talking about dinner. In my family (and to my knowledge most southern families) lunch means noon meal, supper means evening meal, and dinner means biggest meal of the day. Therefore, on weekdays, most families have their biggest meal at supper, because at noon they're at school/work. On Sundays and Holidays their biggest meal is lunch. Therefore, Sunday dinner is at noon, and Wednesday dinner would be in the evening.
49. JB said the following at 9:09 PM on Nov 10:
Nicole #14,
Actually, the terms "gay" and "queer" started to be used around the beginning of the 20th century to refer to homosexual people in a pejorative sense. These words began to be reclaimed and used as self-identifiers by the gay rights movement beginning in the 1980s. Currently, "gay," generally used to refer to homosexual men, is widely accepted as non-pejorative and is usually to be preferred over the faux-medical "homosexual." ("Homosexual" also suffers from the fatal flaw of having both a Greek and a Latin root as it was apparently coined by an illiterate person.) "Queer" is also pretty widely used as a positive term, but this usage is still a bit dodgy and really ought only to be attempted by professionals.
Anyway, if you don't like how "gay" and "queer" are currently used, blame early twentieth century bigots, not gay people.
50. Tami said the following at 9:28 PM on Nov 10:
Inigo (35) -- you are a sneaky one.
51. Heidi M. said the following at 9:40 PM on Nov 10:
The use of the word "hate".
People seem to "hate" just about everything these days. Of course, 99.9% of the time the proper word is "dislike", such as disliking green beans. Hate is a strong word and believe it or not it *is* possible to communicate a negative preference without bringing hate into the picture. Lets all try it sometime, shall we?
52. Rae said the following at 9:42 PM on Nov 10:
Actually something that bugs me is when people are called "illegals." It's like saying that person is not a legitimate person.
BJ (#29) "Perhaps we should identify them more clearly: they are criminals"
Actually, crossing the border illegally is not a criminal violation, it is a civil violation, so no, they are not actually considered criminals.
53. Larissa form Australia said the following at 10:42 PM on Nov 10:
#45 - yep, in Australia "tea" is the evening meal, although some call it dinner. Supper is the snack you have at 9pm-ish (sometime after the proper meal)!
#19 - in Australia, the movie warnings do say "coarse language" :D
54. Craig M. said the following at 11:04 PM on Nov 10:
Love Calvin and Hobbes. And always loved the "adult content" strip. Great stuff.
But "lovers" has a specific connotation that's different than "adulterers" or "fornicators." Granted there's some overlap in how the terms could be used. But they don't mean the same thing, and losing the term "lovers" would be a loss to the language. Language impacts the way we think, and a man who could never think of his wife as being also his "lover" would be missing something.
55. Craig M. said the following at 11:08 PM on Nov 10:
Also: "IF YOU KNOCK MY SMOCK I'LL CLEAN YOUR CLOCK."
56. Jo said the following at 11:43 PM on Nov 10:
1. LMAO at #35!!!
2. What annoys me is people who use internet acronyms like 'LMAO'... :P
3. BDB, 45: my mum sometimes refers to the evening meal as 'tea' but it makes me think of a light snack so I prefer 'dinner' (sorry farmer Tom) - supper to me would have to be at about 10pm.
4. 'Partner' irritates me (when people are unmarried but living together). Especially when people are young. Just say boyfriend or girlfriend!
57. Portland said the following at 12:08 AM on Nov 11:
@ #2 and 29:
Go pick tomatoes for 8 hours and then tell me that you have the audacity to imply that the immigrants who pick your food are "aliens", "illegal", or "criminals".
58. Gabe said the following at 12:36 AM on Nov 11:
My personal favorite is the phrase that is used popularly to describe the euphoria of infatuation: "I've fallen head over heels in love". Presumably, the phrase is meant to cnvey the mental image of tumbling, one end over the other. And this, apparently, is an allusion to the rarity and excitement of new love. Trouble is, if someone is standing normally, they will find their head -- you guessed it -- over their heels. So, taken literally, this phrase evokes a sentiment exactly opposite of the one for which it was created. My vote: "I've fallen heels over head in love."
59. Kathleen said the following at 12:41 AM on Nov 11:
Nicole writes: "Its a shame that words like "Gay" and "Queer" were hijacked as homosexual slang, because that's not at all their true meaning."
I take it that you also regard it as a shame that a word like "Straight" has been hijacked as heterosexual slang. Given that that's not its true meaning and all.
60. Leah said the following at 1:38 AM on Nov 11:
In Australia, it is common to refer to illegal asylum seekers as "illegal immigrants". It is true that they are illegal immigrants, but it has become so ingrained in the public's consciousness that an "illegal immigrant" is from Afghanistan, Iran, or Sri Lanka and is trying to get here by a rusty boat about to sink in the Indian Ocean. Instead, a vast majority of illegal immigrants in Australia are people from the UK and US who have overstayed visas.
And yes it's true, Calvin and Hobbes were based on the theologians :) And I love Calvin & Hobbes too!!
Megan and Farmer Tom, what you are debating differs from country to country. In Australia, "dinner" and "tea" are both the evening meal, while "lunch" is the midday meal and "supper" is the little snack you might have before bed. Although we do refer to lunch as "dinner" if it is the larger meal of the day. It rarely is, but in some instances, like Christmas, "Christmas dinner" might be lunch.
Josh (34) - "begs the question" MEANS "raises the question". Someone begging means they're asking for something, and some instances are "asking" for questions in their complexity/unexpectedness/whatever. It's a figure of speech and is entirely correct to be used that way.
Aeryn (4) - It's just a figure of speech. The literalness/effectiveness of figures of speech only go so far. The sex within marriage is completely pure. Hebrews 13:4 says that the marriage bed is to be kept pure. This does not mean not to have sex! It means to have sex only with your spouse, and that type of sex is pure. The purity before and after marriage are a little different.
Inigo (35) - bahahahahahaha. Why am I the only one who has picked that up??
Louise from Chicago - I wish people would get over this whole "judgmental" thing. It's not judgmental to call someone what they are. And Ted (comment 7) and the original post are in complete agreement. Yes, fornication and adultery are behaviours. Therefore, the people who exhibit those behaviours are fornicators and adulterers. If I lie, it makes me a liar, doesn't it? It would not be judgemental of someone to call me a liar if I had lied. Just like it is not judgmental to call someone an adulterer if they have committed adultery.
Megan (31) - some of your 'pronunciations' are not actual pronunciations, but just how Americans say it. For example, in Australia, "wor-der" would be a much closer pronunciation for what we say than "wah-ter". (We actually say wor-tah, without the pronounced 'r' Americans always do.) Same goes for nuclear. Like Anon (33) said, I (and all Australians) pronounce it "new-clee-er" not "noo-clee-er".
Michael (20) - since when does "inclusive" have to mean inclusive of all opinions, and since when does "diverse" have to mean diverse opinions and not necessarily diverse ethnicities, demographics, ages, etc? Also, I don't think the word "tolerance" is abused. People just don't apply it.
61. Michelle said the following at 3:37 AM on Nov 11:
@BDB #45
Tea in the UK/Oz refers to a light evening meal-at least colloquially...
An example:
Michelle: What are you having for tea?
Kerry: I might have some ice cream, not so proper but eh? ;)
I had to get used to this living here and still get confused...
In a formal sense it means a mid-afternoon meal.
62. Tigger said the following at 4:51 AM on Nov 11:
Farmer Tom, I never knew all that history about the word 'dinner'. Pretty nifty.
Ok. 'Irregardless' is not a word. I also do not understand why 'dethaw' means the same as 'thaw', when they are clearly opposite by means of prefix. Please learn how to say 'nuclear' correctly. One little mistake there and it makes you sound uneducated.
Now really. I can understand a vocabulary larger than one word. If you use 'like' for anything more than preference or simile, I'm going to stop listening to what you have to say and start counting how many times you say 'like.'
This awful Americanism: "I have/had went." Really? Would you say, "I had was?" or "I had took?" or "I had see?" No, you wouldn't (unless you're an ESL student). It's "I had GONE." Always has been. Please sort it out.
Bill Bryson clued me in to this one. "I was nauseous" is akin to saying "I was poisonous." If you are sick, you are "nauseated" (poisoned).
Please don't use the word "impact". Ever. It is a word that has no...effect. (I almost used the word 'impact' there.)
Please don't say things are "retarded" or "gay" when they are actually not. Using those words makes me think you don't listen to what you say or how you present your thoughts. Besides, a listener might care about someone who is gay or mentally challenged, and it's offensive.
I love language. I am going to get a masters in Linguistics, and I know that people don't always have time to think before they speak. But a little bit goes a long way. Some people look at how you present yourself in dress. Others listen to how you present your thoughts. It's important too.
63. Charity said the following at 5:16 AM on Nov 11:
16. Michela
I agree! Moist has long been one of my most hated words. I am also not a fan of the word "patty," as in meat patty or beef patty. I just can't help but picture a big, sweaty man shaping meat with his greasy hands. Gross. :)
43. BDB
I miss it, too. Calvin and Hobbes was such a clever, funny, and often meaningful little comic strip. My cousin, a big Calvin and Hobbes fan, shared this link last night: http://12.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kstirtRgWA1qa95s8o1_500.jpg
64. Chris said the following at 5:26 AM on Nov 11:
24- I completely agree. Language changes. How people use it *is* the right way to use it. The ironic thing is that by airing these petty linguistic grievances, an ignorance of how language works is being displayed.
The other thing is that, such as with the examples in the main post, when someone uses them no one actually thinks that they mean their literal meaning (or their meaning in other contexts). Everyone *knows* that 'lover' and 'adult' have other valences. Those complexities are what make language beautiful! Without the ability of language to hide meanings and mean multiple things at once we would have no poetry, and most of the Bible would make no sense. (Shouldn't we be criticizing the way the Bible uses the words "know" and "lay with" as euphemisms for sex too (!))
Also, 35, you are hilarious. :)
65. Tyler said the following at 6:03 AM on Nov 11:
Louise from Chicago wrote: "Referring to people as "fornicators/adulterers"....the posters on this blog seem to be unaware that most of the people in this world do not have a biblical worldview and as such don't judge other people for their private behavior, at least not by referring to them using judgemental [sic] names."
In actuality, Christians and Muslims comprise 54 percent of the world's population (33 percent and 21 percent, respectively). Most people, it turns out, do have a biblical worldview. Check out the CIA's World Factbook.
And, I feel I must defend against your implied attack on Christian virtue, so:
Sexual activity is (usually) done in private but concerns the entire community. The statistics on abuse (physical, verbal, and sexual) of women and children, levels of happiness, sexual satisfaction, and even life-time income are well known (you can Google it) and all point in favor of marriage.
You might also consider a recent, very preliminary study which suggested that men who consider themselves "sexually experienced" may be more likely to coerce or force a women into a sexual experience. (http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/06/25/men-blame-rape-victims-more-than-women/6736.html).
Or consider a woman I know who was just recently dumped by her live-in boyfriend of 20+ years, and left with no legal rights to anything that she would otherwise have been entitled to if they had been married. She is now living off the kindness of others, instead of alimony.
God Bless.
66. suz said the following at 7:04 AM on Nov 11:
This is slightly off topic, but I really don't like it when people misuse the word "literally." For example, if someone says "i literally have a million things on my to-do list" well then you better have a list with 1,000,000 items on it. What they mean to say is "I really have a million things on my to-do list" and that would be a hyperbole.
67. Zusanne said the following at 7:13 AM on Nov 11:
Another cheer for Calvin and Hobbes! I can't read those when people are around--I laugh too loudly--it's embarrassing. His snowmen . . .
And then when Calvin asks his neighbor, "What's it like being a girl? Is it like being a bug?"
I think I'm taking this one to the fringe, but I can't stand all the text abbreviations. For texting, whatever; I write out all the words, including "you" and "your" and "see" instead of using letters and pretend it doesn't annoy me when someone uses them to send me a message. But when a person uses them in real life--or spells them in a conversation--that puts me over the top.
And how does "ur" equal "your"? Still don't understand that.
68. Trevor Dolby said the following at 7:24 AM on Nov 11:
farmer Tom (42): "Dinner" is actually a difficult word to use without ambiguity - a huge number of people (rural people included) would understand that asking a girl out to dinner means an evening meal, and yet many of the same people would refer to a large meal in the middle of the day as "dinner" :(
I've found that "breakfast", "lunch", "afternoon tea", and "supper" work pretty well on both sides of the Atlantic: everybody understands what the words imply, even if they wouldn't use the words themselves. It avoids the class entanglement of using the word "dinner" in Britain, too.
One thing about the idea that "[t]he working men of the world on the other hand got more accomplished before noon than you did all day": how many of the working men of the world use tools/machines/technology developed by people who were "sitting on [their] posterior at a desk"? Humans are a tool-using species, and a lot of the tool-creators are the very ones to which you refer . . .
69. Katherine said the following at 7:59 AM on Nov 11:
The language abuse I want to be rid of is the abuse of others through language. We demonize, dismiss, belittle, marginalize and cut down one another with our words, these idle words for which we will have to give an account at the Judgment. Shall we use the same mouth with which we praise God to abuse one another, who are made in God's image?
70. John said the following at 8:56 AM on Nov 11:
"water /wah-ter/ pronounced /wor-der/"
I think you mean /wood-er/. I've never heard anyone say /wor-der/
I guess you don't like people from SJ much, ha?
Abuse of words? How about the PC police preventing the use of words: "faggot", "gay", "retard(ed)"?
Teenage boys and men under 40 around the country can no longer insult each other for fear of being expelled, punished or losing their job.
I heard a comedian once talk about not being able to use "gay" or "retard" to describe people or things.
"How am I going to say that a bad movie is "mentally challenged"? It just doesn't sound right."
I don't condone the use of these words, except retarded when used in the right context, but come on, aren't the PC police contradicting themselves?
Faggot used to mean a bundle of sticks or a pack of cigarettes in England, right, then and insult to homosexuals or your buddies or enemies (in English and Spanish) although it has also been used by homosexuals like blacks use the n-word.
Gay meant happy years ago, then homosexual, now stupid.
And retarded meant slow at one time, then mentally slow, now it means stupid.
Thoughts?
71. Merry said the following at 9:27 AM on Nov 11:
Re #45, I don't think he knows about second breakfast. I wouldn't count on him knowing about elevensies, luncheon, afternoon tea, dinner, or supper either.
72. Megan C. from # 3 said the following at 10:09 AM on Nov 11:
"farmer Tom" #42
Sir,
I won't be bated by you. I'm dismayed that you have taken such offense with me. I'd like to offer you an olive branch--an apology. I should have said that, geographically, the definition varies in the States.
Both definitions are correct, Webster's College Dict. (c. 1999) pg 372: 1)the main meal of the day, eaten in the evening or at midday. 2) A formal meal in honor of some person or occasion.
Thank you for your concern for those of us who work hard all day. I grew up on a good, old-fashioned, Iowa farm (where my relatives still refer to the noon meal as "dinner"). I cooked, split and stacked wood with my brothers, mowed several acres, fed livestock, canned, and performed other chores regularly.
I now work at a ranch/camp/college where I cook breakfast for our students and workers; but, mainly, work as the Office Administrator.
I once turned my nose up at "office jobs" and thought that working with ones hands was far superior to sitting on ones derriere in an office. It is extremely difficult to sit at a desk and answer phones, file papers, balance budgets, create graphics, and carry out other sundry tasks, when I would rather be out of doors.
I often struggle with feelings of being unimportant in the larger picture of this ministry (and life), but the truth is that if I were not doing the menial tasks no one else could do his or her job. Our maintenance guys wouldn't know that the concrete trucks will arrive in half an hour. The Director wouldn't know that his appointment with the Board was rescheduled. Our copier, which could be argued to be as expensive as a back hoe, would be constantly jammed up.
I think it appropriate, at this point, to offer a reminder not to make assumptions about each other, and to offer grace or the "benefit of the doubt".
2nd breakfast? Absolutely! Meet you for tea at four.
73. Andrea-Elena said the following at 10:59 AM on Nov 11:
BDB:
Were Calvin and Hobbes making little girls' dresses? 'Cause that's what smocking is to me.
"I don't think he knows about second breakfast, Pip." My favorite line of the entire movie.
74. charlie said the following at 11:00 AM on Nov 11:
one of the terms that really bothers me is 'non-christian', I've been thinking about it for a while now and actually no longer use it.
To me, there's a number of reasons not to describe someone as a 'non-christian'. First of all, it defines someone by what they are not and it makes me question the value system we have in place if we have to define somebody by what they are not.
Secondly, (and this is what bothers me most) is that the term 'non-christian' defines somebody in relation to what *I* am, and for me that's the real heart of the issue. I am, in essence, defining that person by what they are not, in relation to what *I* believe - 'I am a Christian and that person is not what I am'. What it doesn't do is define by who Jesus is, it doesn't define them by the fact that they are uniquely created and loved passionately by God who may already be leading them on a journey towards himself that we may well have the privilege of being a part of.
So, instead I'm a bit more messy - I use less than neat phrases when talking about my friends who don't yet know God. So yeah, it's less snappy, it's not as neatly summarised but i think sometimes that's what it takes to help us understand the power of our words.
75. Spunky said the following at 12:44 PM on Nov 11:
I know a few that bug me too!
I don't like the word geek, because it actually refer to a freak-show attention that bites heads off of chickens and bats.
Prude doesn't mean wise anymore, but you are just a person who is uptight.
Studs are male animals used for mating.
Gay means happy and joyful. Not having to do with sex!
Underwear use to mean longjohns and gowns that are under and not the "personals".
76. Louise from Chicago said the following at 1:49 PM on Nov 11:
Comment 65, interesting information but most of it is irrelevant.
And...would you really consider someone who identifies as a Muslim to have a "biblical worldview?"
I would think most people on this blog would disagree with that.
And then what about people like my family, practicing Catholics with secular worldviews?
They would certainly consider themselves to be "Christian."
And what does receiving alimony have to do with the matter?
I was legally married for thirteen years and I don't receive any alimony.
77. dasiopa said the following at 4:53 PM on Nov 11:
Portland (#57),
Go pick tomatoes for 8 hours and then tell me that you have the audacity to imply that the immigrants who pick your food are "aliens", "illegal", or "criminals".
"Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful."
-C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
78. Thomas Jeffries said the following at 5:17 PM on Nov 11:
Rushncap (#37) said:
Well, Rush, you've got me there. I hereby admit that I fall into the "judgemental" camp: When civil authorities witness evidence of wrongdoing, whether it's running a red light or armed robbery, you better believe that I want them to judge such activities as evil and to stop them with all due haste. Moreover, if any such wrongdoer is using a deadly weapon, then I want the civil authorities to be as judgemental as possible, as quickly as possible.
Now, I'm guessing that you didn't actually mean what you said -- at least I hope not -- in that your response to evildoers is "I think that is wrong, but ... you may do as you please." I'm wondering if you simply don't agree with the Judeo-Christian definitions of right and wrong. In other words, you might classify those who speak out against immorality as judgemental in what you call a "nosy" way. (see your comment #13)
In that regard, I haven't personally seen many Christians embark on a campaign of "adulterers are wrong and therefore evil therefore I must stop them." (again, quoting #37) Honestly, that sounds more like vigilantism, or even Sharia law.
Yet Christians are explicity told to be discerning -- to use sound biblical judgement when evaluating virtually any claim or behavior (Ephesians 5:11, 1 Cor. 2:15, 1 John 4:1). However, there is a type of judgement the Bible explicitly condemns: the haughty, self-righteous person who views his opinions as superior and belittles all others -- one who offers no mercy, forgiveness or encouragement.
It is quite sad when people won't come to God because they are ashamed of their sins and fear His judgement. They need to be told, sometimes over and over again, that it pleases God when we confess our wrongs, for He is full of mercy and grace, and He is eager to forgive.
Above, you called BJ a criminal (#37), but the truth is that I, too, am a criminal. I may not have robbed anyone, but I am a sinner, a liar and a cheat -- a man in desperate need of God's grace and mercy. We all are. Yet thanks to His forgiveness, I no longer fear His judgement.
79. Peter said the following at 7:10 PM on Nov 11:
Charlie #74.
Do you also object to the word "foreigner"? That, also categorises somebody by their relationship to your - or at least, your country of birth.
In truth, you take too much upon yourself. When referring to someone as a "non-Christian" you are categorising them by their attitude towards Christ. One non-Christian may refer to another by that label with perfect accuracy.
80. Peter said the following at 7:20 PM on Nov 11:
Chris #64.
If I call you a fool, would you be offended? Under your argument, you cannot be, because the word would mean what I intended it to mean, and you have no right to be offended until you find out exactly what I meant. I may have just changed the language - surely you don't believe that language is changed by a vote of the majority?
In reality, language is a tool of communication. Communication does not happen well unless both parties apply the same meanings to the words used.
I work, sometimes, in emergency services. Unless we get communication *right*, people may die. For this reason, we train to ensure that important words - for our purposes - are always understood to have the same meanings. General use language may have a great deal more flexibility, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that accurate use of language does not matter.
An error made by a lot of people is still an error.
81. Leah said the following at 10:00 PM on Nov 11:
Kathleen (59) - "straight" has not been hijacked. You can still use the word "straight" without people automatically thinking of sexual connotations. You can't (or very rarely) use "gay" or "queer" without bringing up sexual connotations in people's minds.
Chris (64) said How people use it *is* the right way to use it.
Oh, no no no. That's only the case when everyone starts using a word a specific way, and has done so for a long time. You can't just say a word's definition has now changed because everyone between the ages of 15 and 30 has been using it that way for the past 3 years.
and JB (49) - please show me where Nicole "blamed" anybody, let alone gay people, in her post.
82. Chris said the following at 2:42 AM on Nov 12:
Peter (80) - I think we agree more than disagree. I actually did not say that a word's meaning depends on an individual's intention. I said that how people (plural) use a word gives it it's meaning. That is, it gains meaning through a mixture of collective use (ie the shared understandings of a word held by a group of people that you mention) and the individuals use of the word in a particular context.
At the same time I *do* believe, to an extent, that language is changed by the will of the majority. This never happens all at once like a political election but the fact that words change meaning over time is indisputable. How do you account for this? It occurs because words can be used in multiple contexts and meanings can be stretched. The repeated stretching and creative use of a word, over time, looks like a big jump, but it has really been a slow transition.
In the case of language, many of the supposed errors that people are mentioning here are not actually errors. If the people (plural) using them understand each other then it is just language. Words are really just combination of sounds and their meaning depends on how and when they are used. There is no reason why particular sounds have a specific meaning.
I know that precise language is important (though I suspect that even precise language is less precise than some suppose), but this article and the comments that follow are criticizing everyday, normal usage. Again, though precise language has a use, poetic and creative uses of language are just as, if not more, important in language, since they provide the engine of development and innovation in a language. They give it life.
83. Michael Fumento said the following at 8:51 AM on Nov 12:
One I "love" is reading about "making love" to a prostitute! But this one bowled me over: Years ago on a radio show I heard somebody refer to flies "making love." Yeeee!
Incidentally, if you listen to older songs like I do you often hear people like Frank Sinatra casually sing of "making love." That's because at that time it meant kissing, which also may not have anything to do with love but is normally closer to the mark.
Two other "favorites" are "liberal" and "socialists." There's nothing particularly liberal about liberals or social about socialists. Indeed, "classical liberalism" refers to a strong belief in free market economics, which is the opposite of today's meaning of the term.
Like "gay" and "gay pride" they are just euphemisms, and as such it's not particularly odd that they've been misused.
Finally, here's an interesting thought that may be a little off-point but whatever. We're agreed that swearing is bad, right? But most people don't realize how very easy it is to swear in the traditional sense. For example, "On my word!" is swearing and at one time people truly objected to it. More interesting is how many of our expressions are papered over swearwords involving the Lord's name or feces.
Think about it: "Gosh darn!" "Golly gee!" "Golly!" "Jeepers!" "Jumpin' Jehosafats! (However it's spelled) "Jeezum!" The list is almost endless. And then there's "Shucks!" "Shoot!" and the like.
If swearing is a sin, we probably sin a lot more than seven times a day! I TRY not to utter any of those but my one weakness is uttering the German word for feces. At least most Americans can't understand me!
84. Chris said the following at 9:05 AM on Nov 12:
Leah (81) - A word might enter a dictionary after being used for a "long time" but that's not how words change their meaning. Why do you think words get added to the dictionary? It is because people make them up and meanings change. All dictionaries do is record the meaning that is used, not truly define the meaning.
Incidentally, 3 years is a relatively long time and slang words have entered the lexicon and then fallen out of use within such a span.
If the people using a word understand what each other mean then it is valid.
No one has responded to my point, which you do not address Leah, that such euphemisms and "abuses of language" *have* been used for a long time. They are even found in the Bible. You argue that a word only becomes valid if everyone uses it for a long time. So you must accept that everybody using euphemisms, and doing so for a long time, makes it a valid use of language.
85. Louise from Chicago said the following at 10:06 AM on Nov 12:
Comment 83,
Oh, Scheiss!
:)
86. Tami said the following at 10:36 AM on Nov 12:
Using "enormity" when you mean "enormousness." Yes, some people and dictionaries insist they're synonymous... but I still think there's enough distinction to use "enormousness" when you're referring to something merely huge or momentous, without any notion of horror, atrocity, or negative consequences implied.
87. Lost in The World said the following at 11:27 AM on Nov 12:
Louise from Chicago @ 47: "I stand by my opinion that most people have a secular worldview and as such do not refer to other people by judgemental names, even if they don't approve of another person's behavior."
Staying the course are we? There is a joke in there about you having picked up a few bad habits in hanging out with we Conservatives. :-) (On a side note, may I say that the fact that you spell judgement the British way, with an extra "e", makes me smile. The new boss has been coming down on me for not going with the American spelling, but what about the Queen’s English, I say?)
1) In order to get anywhere I would have to concede most people hold a secular view. If by "Secular" you mean "non-Christian" then you are correct. The traditional meaning of secular, however, is free from religious entanglements. Are you so sure that Atheism is the default in India, and not Islam/Hinduism? Or the Falun Gong and Taoism in China? Yet I will concede to "Non-Christian". In posting, knowing you are less then enamored of the Bible, I argued from the one place I thought you'd respect: Science. Specifically, Anthropology.
2) Do you know any Asiatic languages? Tribal Languages? Believe me when I say, "Fornication" is polite.
3) Louise from Chicago said, "I know you people believe that unless there is a public marriage, there is no "pair bond." Do you? You've divined what I believe from the 10 posts (if that) I've left here? Fact of the matter is, it is irrelevant what I believe personally. I was arguing from anthropology, not my views. All cultures [that aren't European(and Modern Europe at that)] consider the copulatory act as part and parcel of the pair bond. To do the one, is to be in the other. Your entire argument only works if you cherry pick cultures, (Western cultures) and ignore all others.
Which of course you can do, but you should be honest about it. Sources you respect do it one way, so everyone should. But then that gets us back to my first joke.
Have a good day.
88. Zusanne said the following at 11:55 AM on Nov 12:
Chris (84): yes, language develops. In many ways. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be precise.
89. charlie said the following at 12:19 PM on Nov 12:
Peter, (79)
Interesting you should choose to use that word as an example, I would say that actually, yes, I don't like the use of the word foreigner. Why should I choose to use language that alienates someone from myself rather than taking the extra effort to remember (and portray in my speech) the fact they are simply another human being born elsewhere? And even if using other terms only helps me to remember that people from another culture are actually, when it comes down to it, not that 'foreign' to me, it's worth the extra effort.
I understand your concern that this may be a case of me 'taking too much upon myself' but if you study the overwhelming evidence that language is hugely influenced by thought (and language influences thought) let alone what our language says to others about our worldview, I personally find it quite convicting. And yes, I fully understand your point that 'non-christian' reflects somebody's attitude towards Jesus, however all too often I have no idea of what people's experiences of Jesus are (of course there are exceptions to this, but I am not referring to those). They may never have understood who Jesus truly is nor had the opportunity to do so and, when presented with that opportunity, may actually make an entirely different choice to the one the are currently making. In using the phrase 'non-christian', we too often make a qualitative judgement without the necessary understanding to back it up.
90. Louise from Chicago said the following at 12:58 PM on Nov 12:
Comment 87, you do live up to your user name, sir/ma'am!
Best of luck to you.
And the only languages I know are English and German
91. Kevin Gleeson said the following at 9:54 PM on Nov 12:
Related to "undocumented" immigrants as a euphemism for illegals is that failed proposal under Bush's last year to issue the illegals "guest worker permits". Aren't guests supposed to be invited instead of sneaking in?
92. Jo said the following at 12:16 AM on Nov 13:
Zusanne 67:
"And how does "ur" equal "your"? Still don't understand that."
Oh that's easy - "u" is an abbreviation of "you", so stick an "r" on the end and you have "your". I sometimes use those abbreviations in text messages (never anywhere else!) but I like to think I'm very logical with them: "your" -> "ur" and "you're" -> "u're". I do it mainly so I can fit more into one message and don't have to pay for more when I don't need to.
Charlie 74:
"That's really insightful, thanks for that post." In my experience, 'non-christians' find it very strange that we use that term, but I still tend to use it because it's convenient. But perhaps you're right about the right way being a bit messier.
I do prefer saying that someone is 'not a Christian' actually, which is a subtle difference but it feels less like I'm defining the whole person by one aspect. But still...
93. Nicole said the following at 12:55 AM on Nov 13:
This blog has been a very interesting read.
It is more a commentary on the way language changes and the definitions and interpretations of words than anything else, I think.
For instance, some people have brought up the word "love" and how it has been misused. Perhaps it is simply a misinterpretation. Perhaps we should constantly ask "well, what do you mean by that?" instead of assuming somebody means something when they either have no idea what the meaning of the word actually is or they have skewed the meaning.
This happens with "love" all the time. Today this word can mean, love, lust, like, find interesting, tastes good, and a host of other obscure things.
So when people I meet say "I am a Christian", I usually ask, "what do you mean by that?". You'd be suprised at the varied answers I get.
And finally, to add to the mix, the sayings I find frustrating and misused are:
1) "I lost my virginity"
You didn't lose it. It was a gift to you from God and you gave it away or it was (in extreme cases) taken from you. It's not like you put it down somewhere and now you can't find it.
2) "Having sex"
Now I know that "sex" in our culture is now a verb but I still prefer it in it's original noun form. Sex refers to gender. The verb should be sexual intercourse. I know it's long and has many syllables but it cannot be misinterpreted in any way if said like that.
94. Blue Sarah said the following at 3:47 AM on Nov 13:
Mad.
Bad.
Mean.
Wicked.
Sick.
Isaiah 5:20 anyone?
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil..."
95. Preston said the following at 8:26 AM on Nov 14:
To #31
How "dinner" is used depends much on the region in which you are. Where I am in Kansas when you are in town its often used for the evening meal. As soon as you get into rural areas it is always used for the noon time meal, and supper is used for the evening meal.
96. John said the following at 7:24 AM on Nov 18:
#49,
"Actually, the terms "gay" and "queer" started to be used around the beginning of the 20th century to refer to homosexual people in a pejorative sense."
Reference? I'd love to see it.
"These words began to be reclaimed"
How could they be "reclaimed" if they were never "claimed" in the first place? You Cleary said they were used in a pejorative sense. Before that they meant "happy" and "weird".
"Gay rights" - Now THAT'S an abuse of language!
"Currently, "gay," generally used to refer to homosexual men, is widely accepted as non-pejorative and is usually to be preferred over the faux-medical "homosexual.""
It also means "stupid". Ask any teenager. "Faux-medical” Says who? You? Would you prefer the biblical term - Sodomite?
"Gay" was and is in fact a euphemism for individuals that engage in violent sexual behavior based on their effeminate characteristics.
"("Homosexual" also suffers from the fatal flaw of having both a Greek and a Latin root as it was apparently coined by an illiterate person.)
Wow. Where to start. How 'bout this. How 'bout you "dissect" the word "homosexual" and share with us all the "two" root words. And then explain to us how an illiterate person can coin a phrase combining Greek and Latin roots. This should be interesting.
""Queer" is also pretty widely used as a positive term, but this usage is still a bit dodgy and really ought only to be attempted by professionals.
What? Do you even have a clue what you are saying or just attempting humor?
"Anyway, if you don't like how "gay" and "queer" are currently used, blame early twentieth century bigots, not gay people."
How 'bout we just not and say we did. And we can just use more correct phraseology that exactly matches the sickness...sodomites!