More bad etymology
Monday, September 20th, 2004 05:14 amCan we finally put to rest
No, wait. Whenever someone calls for something to be put to rest, it is a sure sign that the thing in question will haunt us like the troubled spirit implicit in the metaphor. Let me start again and simply say: "Here is another example of something that really pisses me off."
If a word used to mean X and now means Y, the "true definition" is not X, but Y.
Because diachronic change is a messy process, it might also be "Y with a hint of X" or "Y everywhere outside Cornwall and South Carolina", but overall, it's Y. To illustrate the point unnecessarily, here is an example of the same reasoning that the original article employs.
No, wait. Whenever someone calls for something to be put to rest, it is a sure sign that the thing in question will haunt us like the troubled spirit implicit in the metaphor. Let me start again and simply say: "Here is another example of something that really pisses me off."
First, lets look into the true definition of the word "nice" so that there isn't any confusion of what people really mean when they call you nice:For the umpteenth time:
The original meaning of the word "nice" meant being precise or exact to fit something else, it had no moral quality. In time colloquial forces in the late Victorian era made it common to misuse the word to abbrevaite appreciation for something that was pleasing because it was harmonious. For instance, a "nice" day was a day that was enjoyable because it was precisely fitting what could be considered harmony to human comfort in terms of moderate temperature, abundant sunlight illumination, and low humidity.
Eventually it was a term applied to people, but it never lost the implied original meaning of being an exact or harmonious fit. In the sexist society of that Victorian era, a "nice" woman was one with a personality subserviant enough that she made herself an exact fit to her husband. Victorian society was also caste oriented, a man might be referred to as "nice" by a another man of higher social station who found him similarly dependible, selfless, and in accordance with his dictates.
If a word used to mean X and now means Y, the "true definition" is not X, but Y.
Because diachronic change is a messy process, it might also be "Y with a hint of X" or "Y everywhere outside Cornwall and South Carolina", but overall, it's Y. To illustrate the point unnecessarily, here is an example of the same reasoning that the original article employs.
First, let's look into the true definition of the word "naughty" so that there isn't any confusion of what people really mean when they call you naughty:
The original meaning of the word "naughty" derives from "naught", and it was first used in the Middle Ages to mean "poor". Because medieval society was caste-oriented, it soon came to mean "morally depraved" or "nihilistic". In Shakespeare, a "naughty man" meant someone with no moral standards.
So when someone calls your dog "naughty", they really mean that it has no money, or no morality, or, well, something.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-19 09:06 pm (UTC)I like this. While there's undoubtedly some interest in knowing a words original use, it doesn't make the current usage invalid.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-19 09:17 pm (UTC)That said, thanks for the pointer to Heartless Bitches -- I agree with the ends of the article and I'm highly entertained by the website, even if not the method of making the argument.