posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
syncope at 09:25am on 07/08/2009
syncope at 09:25am on 07/08/2009So I dled this lecture series called The Story of Human Language 1. because it's relevant to my interests and 2. because of the grandiose name. Really, a unified story of ALL human language? Ok! Let's see what that's about, right? (The image accompanying it was Breughel's Tower of Babel, so basically this link would have been a most excellent way for Satan to steal my soul if so inclined.)
So I'm listening to this lecture series out of order because my iPod is set to shuffle albums. It doesn't matter since I know the topic, of course, but it makes it kind of amusing. As I'm listening, like from the first lecture I landed on (which was proto-Indoeuropean *yawn* or something) I was like "hm, something is familiar here"...but I didn't really pay attention. Of course it's familiar. Eventually I was like "shit, is this someone I KNOW?" because the person was TOO familiar to be random. Which is when I actually looked at the files and the lecture series is by John McWhorter. OH, ok! (The pay off for this story should mean something to like three people reading this.) Interesting choice for this company. I wonder if they chose him *because* he's controversial? (Google him, he's famous...to like me.)
This is all a lead up to something that will piss you off: Semantic Change
I have been meaning to point this out for a long time but a weird confluence of events today is causing me to finally. This concept is relevant to conversations about words like LAME, RETARDED, CRAZY, and (even if you hate it) GAY. The choice to use or not use these words is your own; however, railing into that good night about other people using them is a bit futile. All of these words have undergone semantic shift. You can hate the whiff of repulsion they have due to the meaning you centrally identify with them, but at the same time one has to realize that to others that meaning is stripped. Be as annoyed as you want by it, but these words don't mean what you think they mean to a lesser and greater extent depending on the user and the audience. This happens. It will happen more rapidly with the kind of almost post-literate culture we have now.
I'm not telling you what to be morally outraged about. Whatever, man, we all have our things. I'm just saying that if you were wondering how people you think are rational, reasonable, literate, educated folks could use words like gyp, this is why. Don't even jump on me about that word. Poll ten random people if they know where that word came from, nine out of ten won't, and that one person who does is on livejournal in fannish spaces or a linguist. I am not advocated the use of words that originated as racist slurs, just pointing out the reality on the ground.
I think the salient conversation about words like this would be: should we encourage education about the original meanings of these words and set a standard for usage/non-usage based on the original meanings? How would that standard be enforced? Is it perhaps better that the original, negative connoted meanings have fallen away? To what extent can we police definition drift in a living language? <------ This last one is something that English speakers have been beating each other in the heads over since the first dictionary was written (literally, this is WHY dictionaries were written, people were so cheesed off that people were OMG DOING IT WRONG!).
I think that the inclination to be as thoughtful and caring about the feelings of other is laudable (I sound like a pompous ass!). I just think that sometimes people come across to me as though they assume that everyone knows what they do. HOW COULD YOU! only goes so far when the actual meaning of a word has changed. Or at least broadened. You make up your own mind, I have.
Oh well, write me angry emails.
So I'm listening to this lecture series out of order because my iPod is set to shuffle albums. It doesn't matter since I know the topic, of course, but it makes it kind of amusing. As I'm listening, like from the first lecture I landed on (which was proto-Indoeuropean *yawn* or something) I was like "hm, something is familiar here"...but I didn't really pay attention. Of course it's familiar. Eventually I was like "shit, is this someone I KNOW?" because the person was TOO familiar to be random. Which is when I actually looked at the files and the lecture series is by John McWhorter. OH, ok! (The pay off for this story should mean something to like three people reading this.) Interesting choice for this company. I wonder if they chose him *because* he's controversial? (Google him, he's famous...to like me.)
This is all a lead up to something that will piss you off: Semantic Change
I have been meaning to point this out for a long time but a weird confluence of events today is causing me to finally. This concept is relevant to conversations about words like LAME, RETARDED, CRAZY, and (even if you hate it) GAY. The choice to use or not use these words is your own; however, railing into that good night about other people using them is a bit futile. All of these words have undergone semantic shift. You can hate the whiff of repulsion they have due to the meaning you centrally identify with them, but at the same time one has to realize that to others that meaning is stripped. Be as annoyed as you want by it, but these words don't mean what you think they mean to a lesser and greater extent depending on the user and the audience. This happens. It will happen more rapidly with the kind of almost post-literate culture we have now.
I'm not telling you what to be morally outraged about. Whatever, man, we all have our things. I'm just saying that if you were wondering how people you think are rational, reasonable, literate, educated folks could use words like gyp, this is why. Don't even jump on me about that word. Poll ten random people if they know where that word came from, nine out of ten won't, and that one person who does is on livejournal in fannish spaces or a linguist. I am not advocated the use of words that originated as racist slurs, just pointing out the reality on the ground.
I think the salient conversation about words like this would be: should we encourage education about the original meanings of these words and set a standard for usage/non-usage based on the original meanings? How would that standard be enforced? Is it perhaps better that the original, negative connoted meanings have fallen away? To what extent can we police definition drift in a living language? <------ This last one is something that English speakers have been beating each other in the heads over since the first dictionary was written (literally, this is WHY dictionaries were written, people were so cheesed off that people were OMG DOING IT WRONG!).
I think that the inclination to be as thoughtful and caring about the feelings of other is laudable (I sound like a pompous ass!). I just think that sometimes people come across to me as though they assume that everyone knows what they do. HOW COULD YOU! only goes so far when the actual meaning of a word has changed. Or at least broadened. You make up your own mind, I have.
Oh well, write me angry emails.
There are 77 comments on this entry. (Reply.)