Annie
Not So Junior Member
I heard that, but it seems to be what you are advising. I really detest the acquisition of very good words.
Niggardly controversy
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
I heard that, but it seems to be what you are advising. I really detest the acquisition of very good words.
If I were running for office, especially if I were in a party that has few of a particular minority, I would avoid words that in any way reminded others of an ethnic slur.
I can think of many places I would use the word. But in a stump speech... Never.
Look what one "macaca" can do and that one isn't even an ethnic slur in the nation it was uttered in...
Annie
Not So Junior Member
I think the mainstream should start telling those that try to 'acquire' words, to get the f out of dodge and come up with their own. I know, I'm being ornery, yeah, time.
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
My argument would not be the effectiveness of communication. To be honest if certain people want to interpret my words for their own ends then they are going to do that regardless of history, context or actuality.
I'll use exactly which words i choose to and if people don't like that then they can go away and be offended.
The end point of adapting your words and making yourself heard to the lowest strata of ignorance is oblivion. I realise that my real argument is with those who are educating our children but "you can't use that word 'cos it's a bit controversial" is just as despicable as any other form of censorship.
If you're a politician seeking to convey some sanitised message, fair enough. However, for those who don't really care about communicating with a mass audience, leave me alone.
Good Luck
New member
The fact that the word "niggardly" is used regularly in novels 80 years old does not make it an ancient lexicon. There are numerous words used in 80 year old novels. The vast majority of those words are used today, in varying degrees of commonality. Niggardly may not be in highly common use today, but it is still used by some, as is made obvious by the fact this thread exists. Again, it is not the duty of the author to aim at a 3rd grade reading level to assure no-one is left gasping at the use of too many big words.
Your argument may have some merit in other situations, such as a professional politician addressing a gathering of working class in an economically depressed area where it can be assumed the average education level is below that of average high school graduate. But the instance being discussed to is NOT another situation. The situation is the word "niggardly" was used by an individual posting on a political BBS. The situation is that one or more people, choosing to be ignorant of the meaning of the word, took the author to task for being offensive.
When engaging in discourse on a BBS, there is no need to "read an audience". It is not unreasonable to assume at least some of the participants are reasonably well educated adults. If there are few exceptions, let those exceptions either learn a few new words, or let them stew in their own gravy of ignorance and emotionalism.
If people are too lazy to look up words they do not understand, too bad for them. It does not take a "professorial type" to take a few seconds out and look up a word. It does take a extraordinary level of intellectual laziness to NOT take a few seconds to look up unknown words. The fact that one is reading a BBS means they are online. How much effort does it take to open a tab and go to dictionary.com?
When writing ideas for others to read, there is some responsibility on the part of the author to write clearly. One does not use language unique to a particular profession unless dealing with others of that profession. You assume the word niggardly is deliberately esoteric. That is not a valid assumption as is evidenced by the author's confusion that it was interpreted as offensive. Just because your only experience with the word comes from old novels does not make it esoteric. Your knowledge, experience and vocabulary are hardly the measure by which the rest of the world be judged.
When reading what others have written, there is also some responsibility for the reader. If a reader runs across a word they do not understand, they have the choice of remaining ignorant, or educating themselves with a quick side jaunt to another online source, taking less than a minute to accomplish. IMO, there is no reasonable defense for those who choose the former reaction to an unknown word.
Your argument may have some merit in other situations, such as a professional politician addressing a gathering of working class in an economically depressed area where it can be assumed the average education level is below that of average high school graduate. But the instance being discussed to is NOT another situation. The situation is the word "niggardly" was used by an individual posting on a political BBS. The situation is that one or more people, choosing to be ignorant of the meaning of the word, took the author to task for being offensive.
When engaging in discourse on a BBS, there is no need to "read an audience". It is not unreasonable to assume at least some of the participants are reasonably well educated adults. If there are few exceptions, let those exceptions either learn a few new words, or let them stew in their own gravy of ignorance and emotionalism.
If people are too lazy to look up words they do not understand, too bad for them. It does not take a "professorial type" to take a few seconds out and look up a word. It does take a extraordinary level of intellectual laziness to NOT take a few seconds to look up unknown words. The fact that one is reading a BBS means they are online. How much effort does it take to open a tab and go to dictionary.com?
When writing ideas for others to read, there is some responsibility on the part of the author to write clearly. One does not use language unique to a particular profession unless dealing with others of that profession. You assume the word niggardly is deliberately esoteric. That is not a valid assumption as is evidenced by the author's confusion that it was interpreted as offensive. Just because your only experience with the word comes from old novels does not make it esoteric. Your knowledge, experience and vocabulary are hardly the measure by which the rest of the world be judged.
When reading what others have written, there is also some responsibility for the reader. If a reader runs across a word they do not understand, they have the choice of remaining ignorant, or educating themselves with a quick side jaunt to another online source, taking less than a minute to accomplish. IMO, there is no reasonable defense for those who choose the former reaction to an unknown word.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
I agree, wholeheartedly. On the other hand, I was called 'condescending and aloof' today. Damo, you've known me for years, does that seem right? LOL!