Niggardly controversy

[Damocles]

d

i guess i am confused, when did niggardly come into disrepute

it is not a word that i would normally use in conversation or making a speech

i could always use a thesaurus to find a non-disreputable word if i knew that a particular word has fallen into disrepute, but what if i do not know

It isn't disrepute. That had nothing really to do with what I was saying.

It is simply little used and therefore misunderstood sometimes. If you are giving a speech and your point is to educate on the meaning of words it would certainly be appropriate to use the word in the speech.

If you are giving one and your point is to get people to vote for you, using words that are not in people's regular vocabulary only invites confusion and misunderstandings. If you do that often then you are simply a poor communicator and it doesn't matter what the word is or means.

 

[Cancel7]

I don’t understand…when did it come into disrepute, what do you mean? I have never used that word in my life, and I’ve never heard anyone else use it either. It’s a weird word, very outdated, and I have always assumed the root of it is distasteful. Even racists who use the n word, don’t use it because it’s just out of date. I wouldn’t use it if it weren’t out of date, for what seem to me to be obvious reasons? Am I crazy?

 

[Damocles]

I don’t understand…when did it come into disrepute, what do you mean? I have never used that word in my life, and I’ve never heard anyone else use it either. It’s a weird word, very outdated, and I have always assumed the root of it is distasteful. Even racists who use the n word, don’t use it because it’s just out of date. I wouldn’t use it if it weren’t out of date, for what seem to me to be obvious reasons? Am I crazy?

Actually the word isn't racist, just out of date.

The assumption is that it is racist because it sounds very much like a word that most definitely is.

It seriously just means somebody who is very, shall we say, prudent with their spending habits....

See, DQ? This is what I mean.

Here we are actually speaking of the word, use it and explain.

However if you were making a speech to a group who you wanted to vote for you or to listen to you, don't use words that are outdated like this one, it simply creates confusion.

 

[Antiaris Toxicaria]

I don’t understand…when did it come into disrepute, what do you mean? I have never used that word in my life, and I’ve never heard anyone else use it either. It’s a weird word, very outdated, and I have always assumed the root of it is distasteful. Even racists who use the n word, don’t use it because it’s just out of date. I wouldn’t use it if it weren’t out of date, for what seem to me to be obvious reasons? Am I crazy?

You tend to find it in older literature.

 

[Diuretic]

That depends on whether your point is to communicate or to educate.

If you are attempting to get across an idea and the words you use get in your way, and sometimes are found to be offensive even though they do not mean what the offense is over, then you are an ineffective communicator.

Using a word that some of your audience is sure to find offensive, whether it is because they don't know what it means or that it is in reality offensive doesn't matter at all. What matters is that once those people take offense your meaning, however enlightened it may be, will be lost to them.

The urge to use terms that are no longer mainstream to seem educated is difficult to avoid when speaking, but remembering that the purpose is to communicate ideas and not to teach philology comes in handy in word choices. Nobody is going to listen to a speech that they need a special definition sheet in order to fully understand, unless they are in a classroom where such is appropriate.

You know what shits me in education? The Socratic Method. I mean when it's carried out by some egotistical wanker out the front who sees the people in the class as dumbarses who need to be led by the nose to the "truth" as seen by said egotistical wanker. I've had this discussion with people in education and it gets right up my nose when I hear someone banging on about "taking them with me". I always want to ask them if they're Billy Graham or Benny Hinn or someone.

I'm sorry, I know this is totally unlike me to rant like this (pause for ironic catcalls) but your point about the use of language brought this back to me in a rush.

 

[Diuretic]

I don’t understand…when did it come into disrepute, what do you mean? I have never used that word in my life, and I’ve never heard anyone else use it either. It’s a weird word, very outdated, and I have always assumed the root of it is distasteful. Even racists who use the n word, don’t use it because it’s just out of date. I wouldn’t use it if it weren’t out of date, for what seem to me to be obvious reasons? Am I crazy?

I've used it plenty of times, usually in written work though. It's a good word. The closest I can get to it is pecksniff but that's even more dated and people who've never read Dickens (Pecksniff was a character in Martin Chuzzlewit) don't get it. I've only recently used the word once in another forum and I doubt if anyone got it there either.

 

[Diuretic]

You tend to find it in older literature.

That explains my use of it.

 

[Minister of Truth]

That explains my use of it.

You slimy dastard!

 

[Don Quixote]

make that 'you slimy miserly dastard'


sigh, it was a word that i learned about 50 years ago and have had little use for since, except it and others like it would make the other kids (and some adults) mad at me

take that you varlets

 

[Diuretic]

You slimy dastard!

I'm not that far removed from the slime. I'd wish a murrain on you all but it wouldn't mean a thing. But then I wouldn't really wish a murrain on anyone. Well, maybe the dictator Mugabe.

 

[Diuretic]

I wouldn't wish a murrain really. Maybe a small rash. But not for Mugabe though, the bastard can cop the full Big M as far as I'm concerned.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Not sure what the point of this thread is supposed to be.

Irrespective of where the orgin of the word comes from, it doesn't make it any less offensive.

yes it does. You are stupid and childish if a word that kinda sounds like something else makes you cry. Grow up.

 

[Good Luck]

That depends on whether your point is to communicate or to educate.

If you are attempting to get across an idea and the words you use get in your way, and sometimes are found to be offensive even though they do not mean what the offense is over, then you are an ineffective communicator.

Using a word that some of your audience is sure to find offensive, whether it is because they don't know what it means or that it is in reality offensive doesn't matter at all. What matters is that once those people take offense your meaning, however enlightened it may be, will be lost to them.

The urge to use terms that are no longer mainstream to seem educated is difficult to avoid when speaking, but remembering that the purpose is to communicate ideas and not to teach philology comes in handy in word choices. Nobody is going to listen to a speech that they need a special definition sheet in order to fully understand, unless they are in a classroom where such is appropriate.

The problem with this idea is if one were to be overly concerned with whether the audience is capable of understanding the vocabulary of the communicator, then the communicator is hindered to the point of noncommunication. If one is giving a speech at a college, they can assume a certain level of education and vocabulary. If one is giving a speech at a community forum, the type of forum determines the assumption of education and vocabulary.

But on a BBS, what kind of assumptions can one make about the level of education and vocabulary use? There are no assumptions that can be made. As such the writer at a BBS can only reasoably use the vocabulary they are comfortable with.

If people are going to be offended by a word that superficially resembles another word, that is the fault of the reader for misreading the post, not the fault of the poster. As a society we have become far too sensitive, and many are far too likely to take offense.

Too bad for them. If they are too busy taking offense at a word whose meaning is devoid of offending content, they they are the ones losing out in what may have been an informative and entertaining discussion. I have no sympathy for such people. If they choose to be niggardly in their willingness to add uncommonly used words and phrases to their vocabulary, let them steam in their own ignorance. The writer who used the unoffensive word in an unoffensive manner certainly has nothing at all to be appologetic for.

 

[Damocles]

The problem with this idea is if one were to be overly concerned with whether the audience is capable of understanding the vocabulary of the communicator, then the communicator is hindered to the point of noncommunication. If one is giving a speech at a college, they can assume a certain level of education and vocabulary. If one is giving a speech at a community forum, the type of forum determines the assumption of education and vocabulary.

But on a BBS, what kind of assumptions can one make about the level of education and vocabulary use? There are no assumptions that can be made. As such the writer at a BBS can only reasoably use the vocabulary they are comfortable with.

If people are going to be offended by a word that superficially resembles another word, that is the fault of the reader for misreading the post, not the fault of the poster. As a society we have become far too sensitive, and many are far too likely to take offense.

Too bad for them. If they are too busy taking offense at a word whose meaning is devoid of offending content, they they are the ones losing out in what may have been an informative and entertaining discussion. I have no sympathy for such people. If they choose to be niggardly in their willingness to add uncommonly used words and phrases to their vocabulary, let them steam in their own ignorance. The writer who used the unoffensive word in an unoffensive manner certainly has nothing at all to be appologetic for.

Rubbish. Who your audience is and the current lexicon rather than an ancient lexicon is always helpful.

Careful consideration of the audience is important in relaying meaning.

As for here on the Board. I already said you have plenty of time to relay meaning.

 

[Good Luck]

Rubbish. Who your audience is and the current lexicon rather than an ancient lexicon is always helpful.

Careful consideration of the audience is important in relaying meaning.

As for here on the Board. I already said you have plenty of time to relay meaning.

That's real narrow when "ancient" is defined by egocentric twenty year olds. The word niggardly is hardly an "ancient" lexicon. It was not common, but neither was it uncommon useage in my earlier decades. And I am not THAT old. As for "careful consideration" of audience, I already addressed that. The objection to the word came from people on a BBS. As stated, one cannot consider the audience in such an instance. Your audience will include people from mid to late teens up through 70s. It will include people of most socioeconomic strata, and all races, as well as a greatly varied level of knowledge, experience, and education.

You can trip over your tongue and be fearful of using multisylabic words or compound phrases if you want to. Such "careful consideration" is not unusual in these days of "political correct" mania. But I do not believe the use of a non-offensive word is incorrect regardless of to whom it is being addressed. While one does not use professionally esoteric symbology when dealing with people outside the profession, words like "niggardly" are hardly professionally esoteric. If you don't know what a word means, look it up. With the exception of using lay terms when talking about one's profession to people outside the profession, it is not an author's duty to write at a 3rd grade level lest they use words someone might not know.

If someone wants to take offense out of ignorance, let them. It is, after all, their loss if they wish to remain in ignorance. No apology is needed in such instances. Nor, as far as I am concerned, is any explanation needed other than inviting the offended to go look up the word they incorrectly interpret as offensive.

 

[Damocles]

That's real narrow when "ancient" is defined by egocentric twenty year olds. The word niggardly is hardly an "ancient" lexicon. It was not common, but neither was it uncommon useage in my earlier decades. And I am not THAT old. As for "careful consideration" of audience, I already addressed that. The objection to the word came from people on a BBS. As stated, one cannot consider the audience in such an instance. Your audience will include people from mid to late teens up through 70s. It will include people of most socioeconomic strata, and all races, as well as a greatly varied level of knowledge, experience, and education.

You can trip over your tongue and be fearful of using multisylabic words or compound phrases if you want to. Such "careful consideration" is not unusual in these days of "political correct" mania. But I do not believe the use of a non-offensive word is incorrect regardless of to whom it is being addressed. While one does not use professionally esoteric symbology when dealing with people outside the profession, words like "niggardly" are hardly professionally esoteric. If you don't know what a word means, look it up. With the exception of using lay terms when talking about one's profession to people outside the profession, it is not an author's duty to write at a 3rd grade level lest they use words someone might not know.

If someone wants to take offense out of ignorance, let them. It is, after all, their loss if they wish to remain in ignorance. No apology is needed in such instances. Nor, as far as I am concerned, is any explanation needed other than inviting the offended to go look up the word they incorrectly interpret as offensive.

1. Your assumption shows your inability to read an audience. I do not fear multi-syllabic words, nor do I need a dictionary to understand involuntary negative reactions to similar sounding words. Just as I can understand involuntary negative reactions to many things that have produced negative reactions in others. If one can be avoided as easily as this, then you have no excuse other than incapability of understanding others to attempt to manhandle your vision of language onto their sensibilities.

2. The word is regularly used in texts that are 80 years old and older. That is ancient when speaking of language. Your audience is not a college classroom, they are there to learn your positions not to attend a lexicography course, and your audience has little urge or recourse to "look it up" if you are speaking to a crowd of active politicos where often the perception is the reality. You can end a career because you are ineffective as a communicator and insist on using a word that you believe through "ignorance" causes negative reaction.

One could use, for instance, a multi-syllabic word that wouldn't invoke negative imagery, whether by ignorance or simply by the amazing coincidence that it sounds quite similar to a word that is actually offensive, one could use a word like "parsimonious" or "penurious" or even "ungenerous" instead of "niggardly". It is more effective for many reasons. Two of which are: The word usage is out of date and reintroduction can be problematical because of the involuntary negative imagery associated to the word's similarity in pronunciation to an ethnic slur.

3. If the usage gets in the way of meaning then it is useless as a tool in communication, regardless of the reason for it. If you fall short of the goal to communicate ideas in a world of ideas you have rendered yourself, and your ability to extend your ideation, worthless.

 

[charver]

1. Your assumption shows your inability to read an audience.

Perhaps, when making one's self heard one isn't too concerned with "the audience". After all we're not all seeking votes or praise from said audience.

2. The word is regularly used in texts that are 80 years old and older. That is ancient when speaking of language. Your audience is not professorial and has little urge to "look it up" if you are speaking to a crowd of active politicos.

Language is fluid and constantly evolving, yes. However, that does not mean that words from "the past" are any less valid than the current lexicon of the teenager on the street today. I often use words that are not "modern" or used on a regular basis. The reason? Because i love language. The obvious end to a "need to communicate" is the constant dumbing down of language and the farce at the root of this thread.

 

[Annie]

Perhaps, when making one's self heard one isn't too concerned with "the audience". After all we're not all seeking votes or praise from said audience.



Language is fluid and constantly evolving, yes. However, that does not mean that words from "the past" are any less valid than the current lexicon of the teenager on the street today. I often use words that are not "modern" or used on a regular basis. The reason? Because i love language. The obvious end to a "need to communicate" is the constant dumbing down of language and the farce at the root of this thread.

I do not often disagree with the great and righteous Damo, however in this case I do. Sometimes niggardly is appropriate; as is gay, without meaning homosexual; balls sometimes mean a toy. The strict pc stuff is of jr high material.

 

[Damocles]

Perhaps, when making one's self heard one isn't too concerned with "the audience". After all we're not all seeking votes or praise from said audience.



Language is fluid and constantly evolving, yes. However, that does not mean that words from "the past" are any less valid than the current lexicon of the teenager on the street today. I often use words that are not "modern" or used on a regular basis. The reason? Because i love language. The obvious end to a "need to communicate" is the constant dumbing down of language and the farce at the root of this thread.

Using words without regard to the reality of similarity to other words and its capability to cause involuntary negative emotions shows a lack of understanding of actual communication.

While language is always evolving, the reality is if your audience is offended by your choices of words, even through "ignorance" then your message has become lost.

The mention that the word is ancient in usage has little to do with my argument concerning effective communication. If your selection of words causes hours of internet geek posting on the relative usage of one word of your speech then the ideas you meant to communicate are lost. You have 100% rendered your message worthless.

 

[Damocles]

I do not often disagree with the great and righteous Damo, however in this case I do. Sometimes niggardly is appropriate; as is gay, without meaning homosexual; balls sometimes mean a toy. The strict pc stuff is of jr high material.

And many times it will be still if you use my methodology.

In some cases the word's usage would be a net gain.

I said be careful of its usage and to tailor your message to your audience, I didn't say throw the word away in all cases.