Skip to main content

View Diary: I Hate Libtards, Obummercare and Brangelina! (64 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But it used to take usage many years before (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jodylanec

    it would become an accepted change to our lexicography. With modern instantaneous communication, buzzwords spread like wildfire, finding their way into our language and gaining acceptance before they can be tried and true.

    The language is changing too fast and if discipline is not exercised before accepting changes, at the very least, modern English will become a bear to teach.

    That being said, some new usages do appeal to me. I like "Hatriot" as the description for what often passes for a patriot these days. A Hatriot is someone who believes he is being patriotic in who he hates. Or it's someone who hates everybody who doesn't fit his/her definition of patriotic.

    As far as the bastardization of Obama's name? I would not worry about it.
    Ronald Rayguns.
    That never hurt him one bit. BOH will get along just fine with Obummer et al.

    "Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Gentle Giant on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 12:06:35 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  "before they can be tried and true"? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Prinny Squad

      What does that even mean?  How does the spread-and-acceptance of terms not qualify as "tried"?

      •  Fads. Widespread but short-term use does (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gentle Giant

        not make something tried and true, i.e., thoroughly tested and known to be effective.

        •  The only way to test a word (0+ / 0-)

          is to use it in general conversation, i.e., widespread use -- and all initial widespread use is short-term.  If it's not an effective word, people aren't going to use it.

          •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

            All initial widespread use is not necessarily short-term. It depends on what you define as "short term" and "widespread."
            Sure, phrases can spread quickly, but using something once, twice or a few times within, say, a week, no matter how many people say it, is not widespread. But that is the effect of the immediacy of today's communication technology. And I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. I believe it isn't a good thing in the evolution of our language to not take the time and discipline to see how a word or phrase pans out.
            I'm one for protecting and conserving the core of our language and making academic changes only when they've proven themselves over time.
            By "widespread", I include time, repeat usage, which would indicate acceptance. Tried and true. Time-tested.

            "Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

            by Gentle Giant on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 01:14:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I may be misunderstanding what you mean (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Gentle Giant

              by "taking the time and discipline to see how a word pans out."

              We should be taking this time before doing what, exactly?

              •  Changing the lexicon. (0+ / 0-)

                "Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

                by Gentle Giant on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:11:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Okay, so ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Gentle Giant

                  ... leaving aside the question of whether there really is or should be such a thing as "the lexicon," i.e. a single authoritative list of all the Real Words in the language ...

                  ... what's the downside of putting words into the lexicon as soon as people are using them and understanding them?

                  •  For one thing, it would be unwieldy (0+ / 0-)

                    if every figure of speech from every dialect, including fad speech, found its way into the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language.
                    And once the fad phrases die out, in a short period of time, there will soon be more archaic words and phrases than those in common use.
                    Grammatical structure will suffer when phrases not adhering to the "rules" of grammar are accepted into usage, unless they are noted as such.

                    To me, it's the same vein as how corporate rock waters down and pollutes rock music. Our language is a beautiful thing, and, yes, it lives, "breathes" and changes. A certain amount of preservation- of weeding out the chaff and nurturing what is good- maintains its beauty.
                    I'm not saying we should lock down our vocabulary. I'm saying we should strike an intelligent balance, be picky, when it comes to our mother tongue.

                    "Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

                    by Gentle Giant on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:20:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry to disagree (well, keep disagreeing) (0+ / 0-)

                      but I don't see any of those as downsides in the slightest.

                      And there's a profound downside to trying to maintain any kind of "quality control" over our vocabulary.  Because if we're going to be picky, somebody has to be the arbiter of what constitutes chaff to be weeded out and what constitutes good to be nurtured, and that's not a power I'm willing to leave in any one set of hands.  (Especially when race and class are involved, and race and class are always involved.)

                      It's also an ultimately futile thing to attempt.  You can keep words and phrases out of the dictionary, but you can't keep people from using them; all you would theoretically accomplish by keeping them out of the dictionary is to prevent people who don't already know a phrase from finding out what it means when they hear it used.  And thanks to sites like urbandictionary.com, you can't even really do that anymore -- but why would you want to in the first place?

    •  I doubt the current speaker will be harmed (0+ / 0-)

      either. And while I think he is the epitome of a dickhead, I don't think I have ever referred to him as Boner.

      Not because I find it inordinately offensive. I just prefer to call him a dickhead.

      Just this weekend I referred to Phyllis Schlafly as 'Shitfly' in another diary. Hardly original I know, but very satisfying.

      IMO there is a difference in using the derogatory terms we coin for our adversaries when we are in conversation with like-minded people and using them in actual arguments with our adversaries.

      I have yet to see it fail that once all legitimate and illegitimate, reasonable and unreasonable, factual and fantastic avenues have been explored and exhausted in an argument with a right-wing conservative - rather than concede, they will resort to calling me names.

      I refuse to play that way. Conversation over. I win.

      "There is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women." ~Madeleine K. Albright

      by jodylanec on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 01:14:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site