Etymological vs phonetic objectionability

[Roy]

The DeSantis thread got me thinking: what is your opinion on the word "niggardly"? It's an adjective meaning stingy, not generous, etc. AFAICT, it has no etymological relationship whatsoever to you-know-what, but the phonetic similarity is obvious.

I tend to like obscure words with specific meanings; not that I get the chance to use them that often, but I think they're neat. Words like "accoutrements" and "dingus" (no, it's not an insult). But for obvious reasons, I'd be hesitant in using "niggardly."

Should a case like this, where purely phonetic similarity could get somebody in trouble, dictate the non-usage of the word?

No. "Niggardly", "niggle", "nigori" and "nighantu" are fine. If I wanted to discuss Nigtevecht I'd discuss Nigtevecht, and any-one who complained about racism would get short shrift.

"Nigraniline", "nigrescence", "nigritude" and "denigrate", not so much.

If some-one is deliberately going out of their way to use words that might be mistaken as racial slurs, I might find that unacceptable - unless they were doing so in response to some-one unjustifiably objecting to innocent use of such words.

[Roy]

I guess we must accommodate stupidity...

If you want stupid people to vote for you, then yes.

[Roy]

Hey! Defenestrate is one of my favorite obscure words.

Zzxjoanw.

[oxmixmudd]

I guess we must accommodate stupidity...

This conversation got me thinking. So here is my suggestion. Since you want to hit out at stupid misunderstandings or misappropriations of words especially as they relate to 'liberal' causes, why don't each of you when you are feeling happy say:

"I'm feeling gay today"

I think that would be a really great addition to your campaign.


Or are you only interested in the challenge when you can offend someone else, as opposed to draw the attention over the misused word to yourselves?



Jim

[Roy]

This conversation got me thinking. So here is my suggestion. Since you want to hit out at stupid misunderstandings or misappropriations of words especially as they relate to 'liberal' causes, why don't each of you when you are feeling happy say:

"I'm feeling gay today"

How about "I'm proud that I'm gay"?

[Leonhard]

Eh, it just reminds me of demiservatives original name.

[Leonhard]

Didn't know it came from the Old Norse 'nigla' (to fuss about small matters). Oddly fitting to this discussion.

[Zymologist]

Didn't know it came from the Old Norse 'nigla' (to fuss about small matters). Oddly fitting to this discussion.

Oh it's definitely trivial, just something I was wondering about.

[Cow Poke]

No. "Niggardly", "niggle", "nigori" and "nighantu" are fine. If I wanted to discuss Nigtevecht I'd discuss Nigtevecht, and any-one who complained about racism would get short shrift.

"Nigraniline", "nigrescence", "nigritude" and "denigrate", not so much.

If some-one is deliberately going out of their way to use words that might be mistaken as racial slurs, I might find that unacceptable - unless they were doing so in response to some-one unjustifiably objecting to innocent use of such words.

But here's the deal - part of "wisdom" is anticipating unintended consequences, and there's no doubt that, in this political climate, the unintended consequence of using a word like "niggardly" (even properly) will be that more attention will be spent on the fact that you used the word "niggardly" than on the message you intended to convey.

Do you have a right to use "niggardly" properly? Absolutely. Is it wise? Not usually. I think if you were speaking to a group you knew well (somebody suggested "know your audience") and they were actually interested in your message, you'd be fine.

[Zymologist]

But here's the deal - part of "wisdom" is anticipating unintended consequences, and there's no doubt that, in this political climate, the unintended consequence of using a word like "niggardly" (even properly) will be that more attention will be spent on the fact that you used the word "niggardly" than on the message you intended to convey.

Do you have a right to use "niggardly" properly? Absolutely. Is it wise? Not usually. I think if you were speaking to a group you knew well (somebody suggested "know your audience") and they were actually interested in your message, you'd be fine.

I will, however, continue to use "dingus" whenever I get the opportunity.

[Cow Poke]

This conversation got me thinking. So here is my suggestion. Since you want to hit out at stupid misunderstandings or misappropriations of words especially as they relate to 'liberal' causes, why don't each of you when you are feeling happy say:

"I'm feeling gay today"

I think that would be a really great addition to your campaign.


Or are you only interested in the challenge when you can offend someone else, as opposed to draw the attention over the misused word to yourselves?



Jim

You're suggesting that we PLAN on using a particular phrase, rather than "when it just happens". Not the same thing.



TRUE STORY... I was preaching once on "But GOD!"... a number of places where there were bad things happened, or were about to happen, "But GOD...." intervened, etc....
After giving several examples, I got to Acts 13:29 - And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre

- and I paused, letting that hang in the air a minute.

Then I smiled, and asked, "do you smell a 'but' coming?" Right away, I realized what I had said, so I rushed on, but couldn't help but notice my wife and daughter in the second pew giggling under their breaths.


I would never have PLANNED on using that phrase in a sermon, but it happened.

[Roy]

But here's the deal - part of "wisdom" is anticipating unintended consequences, and there's no doubt that, in this political climate, the unintended consequence of using a word like "niggardly" (even properly) will be that more attention will be spent on the fact that you used the word "niggardly" than on the message you intended to convey.

Do you have a right to use "niggardly" properly? Absolutely. Is it wise? Not usually. I think if you were speaking to a group you knew well (somebody suggested "know your audience") and they were actually interested in your message, you'd be fine.

I'm a Brit who works and socialises with intelligent people, not a US politician. I don't have to modify my language to mollify semi-literate Americans. I can even be secure in knowing that everyone around me knows what "defenestration" is.

I find it surprising that you prefer to pacify the ignorant than educate them.

[Cow Poke]

I'm a Brit who works and socialises with intelligent people, not a US politician. I don't have to modify my language to mollify semi-literate Americans. I can even be secure in knowing that everyone around me knows what "defenestration" is.

That's wonderful.

I find it surprising that you prefer to pacify the ignorant than educate them.

Wow, Roy, way to totally miss the point! I usually find you much sharper than this.

If my GOAL is to get my message across - if that's what's really important to me - then I'll craft my message to fit the audience.

If my goal is to educate them, that will be another approach.

[Roy]

Wow, Roy, way to totally miss the point! I usually find you much sharper than this.

If my GOAL is to get my message across - if that's what's really important to me - then I'll craft my message to fit the audience.

So will I. In my time I've communicated with people ranging from adult literacy students to professors. Sometimes the best way to ensure your message is remembered is to be deliberately provocative.

Also, audiences aren't monolithic. If annoying some people is the price for using the best terminology and presenting the best picture to the majority, then maybe you should do that - and perhaps those who are annoyed will learn something. Of course that won't happen if those who do know the meanings of words cave to ignorance and faulty perceptions.

If my goal is to educate them, that will be another approach.

When would that not be at least part of your goal? If you aren't telling some-one something they don't know, why are you talking to them? Getting your message across is education - unless you're deceiving. Which brings us back to political stumping...*





*...or in my case, bluffing at cards/games.

[Cow Poke]

So will I. In my time I've communicated with people ranging from adult literacy students to professors. Sometimes the best way to ensure your message is remembered is to be deliberately provocative.

Agreed. But remembered for what?

The rest of your post looks like argument for argument's sake, so I'll leave that to you.