Meaning of "Jerk"
Bill Baldwin
they use the same incorrect definition, more or less, indicating that a "jerk"
is someone who is stupid. Witness the definition in the American Heritage
Dictionary (3d ed.): "Slang. A dull, stupid, or fatuous person." Random House
is similar: "Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential
person." And Merriam-Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary says essentially
the same thing. (It's in another room and I'm too lazy to go get it.)
How did they all get the idea that being a "jerk" involves below average
intelligence? Does anyone reading this use the term that way? Or do you use it
the way I do, to describe a mean, contemptible, or obnoxious person? Being a
jerk is one step removed from being an a**hole, right? (Pardon my prudish
spelling, all you wild uninhibited types.)
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Tim Robinson's use of the word in
another thread seems perfectly natural:
> Well, you can't really be below average intelligence and pass the bar.
> You can be ineloquent or a jerk and pass, but you can't be stupid.
To the dictionary writers, this would be an oxymoron.
--
Bill Baldwin
Clint experimental
>How did they all get the idea that being a "jerk"
> involves below average intelligence?
Sorry, my dic agrees with yours. From the QPB Encyclopedia of Word and
Phrase Origins, >jerk, Though jerk has been since the 1940s
> harmess, everyday slang for a fool, the word
> originally meant "a masturbator," in the form
> of _a jerk off_, this expression having meant
> to masturbate since at least 1590.
Have Fun,
Clint
Kurt Foster
. All my dictionaries define "jerk" (referring to a person) incorrectly.
. And they use the same incorrect definition, more or less, indicating
.
It may be that the definition was "correct" when the entries were
compiled (i.e. that was the meaning of the common usage), but the meaning
has changed since then. We are dealing with a living language after all.
The word "jerk" also means the third derivative of position with respect
to time; that is, the time rate of change in acceleration.
You might try alt.usage.english as well, for this sort of question.
Robert William Vesterman
>In <73tn6d$sdl$1...@news-1.news.gte.net> "Bill Baldwin" <rev...@gte.net> writes:
>
>>All my dictionaries define "jerk" (referring to a person) incorrectly. And
>>they use the same incorrect definition, more or less, indicating that a "jerk"
>>is someone who is stupid.
><snip>
>
>
>>How did they all get the idea that being a "jerk" involves below average
>>intelligence?
>
>More to the point, of course, when did its meaning shift? It *seems*
>that I've always used the newer definition, but Steve Martin's "The
>Jerk" (1979) is firmly rooted in the older meaning, and I don't
>remember the title being all that jarring to me at the time.
Hmmm... I've never seen it, but I distinctly remember thinking that
the movie was about an ass, not an idiot.
I was nine at the time - how old were you? Maybe the older version
never made it to my generation.
Bob Vesterman.
--
This is the coolest of all sig files.
Tim Robinson
>All my dictionaries define "jerk" (referring to a person) incorrectly. And
>they use the same incorrect definition, more or less, indicating that a "jerk"
>Dictionary (3d ed.): "Slang. A dull, stupid, or fatuous person." Random House
>is similar: "Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential
>person." And Merriam-Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary says essentially
>the same thing. (It's in another room and I'm too lazy to go get it.)
>
>the way I do, to describe a mean, contemptible, or obnoxious person? Being a
>jerk is one step removed from being an a**hole, right? (Pardon my prudish
>spelling, all you wild uninhibited types.)
>
>Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Tim Robinson's use of the word in
>another thread seems perfectly natural:
>
>> Well, you can't really be below average intelligence and pass the bar.
>> You can be ineloquent or a jerk and pass, but you can't be stupid.
>
>To the dictionary writers, this would be an oxymoron.
Well, you'll notice that the word "or" is in use. A "fatuous" person
would be "foolish or or inane, esp. in a unconscious complacent manner."
I guess that would be a fair description of a "jerk" as you and I
understand it (and as I meant it in your quote above). I notice my
RHUD declines to attach any statement of intelligence as your
dictionaries do. Having said that, I recalled that I had a pocket
dictionary (Houghton-Mifflin) in my desk. Seems that it says a jerk is
"a stupid person." I think I'll trust my $100 RHUD over that $2.95
dictionary.
Why would any dictionary compiler add a definition never in use? One
can only guess. I suspect lack or rigor and then subsequent re-use of a
bad definition. One must assume that -- for all their intelligence --
the writers were jerks. :-)
| Tim Robinson | Lonely Web page. Please visit. |
| timt...@ionet.net | http://www.ionet.net/~timtroyr |
| "The text of the First Amendment makes no distinction between print, |
| broadcast, and cable media." Justice Clarence Thomas' lone dissent. |
Bob Roberds
> >More to the point, of course, when did its meaning shift? It *seems*
> >that I've always used the newer definition, but Steve Martin's "The
> >Jerk" (1979) is firmly rooted in the older meaning, and I don't
> >remember the title being all that jarring to me at the time.
>
> Hmmm... I've never seen it, but I distinctly remember thinking that
> the movie was about an ass, not an idiot.
I was...lessee, about 14 when it came out. I don't
remember thinking that the title was unfitting...
but I've since come to think of "jerk" as being
synonymous with "asshole", whilst the best description
of Steve Martin's character in "The Jerk" would
be "moron" or "idiot". Looks like the meaning has
migrated over time, or rather, it used to have two
meanings, and one has died out.
Now, on the subject of the term "asshole". Most of
us understand it to mean "a rude, thoughtless, cruel
person". Or something to that effect. But have you
ever wondered what rude, thoughtless, cruel people
think it means? I got an interesting insight into
this in college. A friend of mine was, to be blunt,
rude, thoughtless and cruel. He mellowed out over
time - but early on, when this story is set, he could
be quite obnoxious. So anyway, a bunch of us were
sitting around discussing various assholes we knew...
someone mentioned a football player who abused his
girlfriend, someone else mentioned a guy who let
his dog crap in peoples' yards, and so forth. So
anyway, my obnoxious friend said, "There's this real
asshole in one of my classes!" We asked what he did,
and my friend replied, "He eats Reese's Peanut Butter
Cups! In class! What an asshole!"
So there you have it. To most of us, an asshole is
a rude, cruel, thoughtless person. But it seems the
assholes themselves define an asshole as someone who
eats Reese's Peanut Butter Cups in class. Kinda like
the story about how Vermonters define a Yankee as
somebody who has pie for breakfast.
--
Bob Roberds____________| Read "Soap On A Rope" -
Spam me. Make my day._| http://www.soaprope.com
_______________________| You'll laugh til you stop.
Bill Baldwin
>>More to the point, of course, when did its meaning shift? It *seems*
>>that I've always used the newer definition, but Steve Martin's "The
>>Jerk" (1979) is firmly rooted in the older meaning, and I don't
>>remember the title being all that jarring to me at the time.
Excellent point. Hadn't even thought of that. It seems to me the current
meaning was also in use by then, but maybe my memory's playing tricks on me.
Robert William Vesterman wrote:
>Hmmm... I've never seen it, but I distinctly remember thinking that
>the movie was about an ass, not an idiot.
No, it was definitely about somebody loveable but not the brightest bulb on
the tree. The print ads for the film had a line something like this: "He was
the white son of black sharecroppers and he didn't know he was adopted."
>I was nine at the time - how old were you? Maybe the older version
>never made it to my generation.
I was 13 or 14 when the film came out. I don't think I ever actually used
"jerk" to mean a stupid or naive person. But as noted above, the context of
the word, even in the ads, was so clear that I accepted that as Martin's
meaning without any dissonance. In the absence of the context, I suspect I
would have assumed as you did that the movie was about a contemptibly
self-centered man who enjoyed screwing people over.
--
Bill Baldwin
Helge Moulding
> >All my dictionaries define "jerk" indicating that a "jerk" is someone
> >who is stupid.
> Seems that it [another dictionary] says a jerk is "a stupid person."
My M-W 9th New Collegiate doesn't give any intimations that "stupid"
means lacking intelligence. The definitions for "stupid" merely offer
that such a person *acts as if* they lacked intelligence. "Stupid" is
not a clinical diagnosis for diminished intellect.
> Why would any dictionary compiler add a definition never in use?
1) I don't think that the listed examples show that they do.
2) "Jerk" is hardly a rigorous term.
--
Helge "Trying not to act like one." Moulding
mailto:hmou...@mailexcite.com Just another guy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401 with a weird name
KGename
>"jerk" is someone who is stupid.
The word "JERK" originated with the low-paid employee who operated the soda
fountain behind the counter at the drugstore or ice-cream shop. He "jerked" the
control handle for the soft-serve, seltzer, or whatever.
I know you know this. I bring it up because the guy behind the counter was
usually the owner's son...a kid devoid of personal freedom who must spend all
his spare time helping out the family business. Even though he might be
intelligent, he has to keep his opinion to himself, and operate in a
customer-is-always-right manner. Never allowed to respond to the buffoon who's
insulting him, the jerk must either remain silent or respond in a positive way.
I ask you: Might he be construed as a "naive, foolish, or inconsequential
person"? And, after setting the standard, could it be that anyone who does
nothing but take shit all day, without complaining, might be thought of as
going through his life as the soda jerk? If the "soda JERK (or "JERKER", as he
was sometimes known, too) was instead known as the soda "PULLER", then might
other simpletons also be knows as "pulls"?
(What a dope. A total pull.)
Funny thing, both "jerk" and "pull" seem to have the same filthy
masterbatory possibilities.
As this is the way my lil' brain seemed to figure this entemology out for me
a long time ago, I only offer it as the way it seems to me. No flames please.
Regards, Keith
--The above message may or may not reflect the opinions of the voices in my
head--
Francis Lapeyre
Bill Baldwin wrote in message <73tn6d$sdl$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>All my dictionaries define "jerk" (referring to a person) incorrectly. And
>they use the same incorrect definition, more or less, indicating that a
"jerk"
>Dictionary (3d ed.): "Slang. A dull, stupid, or fatuous person." Random
House
>is similar: "Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or
inconsequential
>person." And Merriam-Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary says
essentially
>the same thing. (It's in another room and I'm too lazy to go get it.)
The key word is "or", meaning that a jerk can be fatuous (which does not
imply stupidity), stupid, or dull, but not necessarily all three.
Regards,
Francis
---------------
Francis Lapeyre
"An nescis, mi filli, quantilla prudentia mundus rogatur?"
Spam deterrent: Remove the sound of the domestic feline in my address to
reply via e-mail.
WARNING: Spammers will be hearing from their ISPs.
I WILL track you down and complain!
Bill Baldwin
>Bill Baldwin wrote:
>>All my dictionaries define "jerk" (referring to a person) incorrectly. And
>>they use the same incorrect definition, more or less, indicating that a
>"jerk" is someone who is stupid. Witness the definition in the American
>>Heritage Dictionary (3d ed.): "Slang. A dull, stupid, or fatuous person."
>> Random House is similar: "Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous,
>>Collegiate Dictionary says essentiallythe same thing. (It's in another
>>room and I'm too lazy to go get it.)
>
>The key word is "or", meaning that a jerk can be fatuous (which does not
>imply stupidity), stupid, or dull, but not necessarily all three.
Fatuous implies stupidity to me. More important for this argument, fatuous
implies stupidity to the dictionaries quoted. ("Foolish" is the actual word
they use.) So assuming internal consistency, these dictionaries do intend to
imply that a jerk is stupid or foolish when they describe such a person as
"fatuous."
--
Bill Baldwin
Scott Stephens
than
this occupation. Websters 1828 dictionary says:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JERK, v.t. [This is probably the Ch.Heb. to reach, to spit, that is, to throw out
with a sudden effort.]
1. To thrust out; to thrust with a sudden effort; to give a sudden pull, twitch,
thrust or push, as, to jerk one under the ribs; to jerk one with the elbow.
2. To throw with a quick, smart motion; as, to jerk a stone. We apply this word to
express the mode of throwing to a little distance by drawing the arm back of the
body, and thrusting it forward against the side
or hip, which stops the arm suddenly.
JERK, v.t. To accost eagerly. [Not in use.]
JERK, n. A short sudden thrust, push or twitch; a striking against something with
a short quick motion; as a jerk of the elbow.
His jade gave him a jerk,
1. A sudden spring.
Lobsters swim by jerks.
Karen Lingel
Kurt Foster wrote in message <73ubos$r5t$1...@news1.rmi.net>...
> The word "jerk" also means the third derivative of position with respect
>to time; that is, the time rate of change in acceleration.
Aha! Now I understand Jamacian chicken.
=k=
Barbarian
John M. Lawler
>All my dictionaries define "jerk" (referring to a person) incorrectly. And
>they use the same incorrect definition, more or less, indicating that a
>"jerk" is someone who is stupid. Witness the definition in the American
>Heritage Dictionary (3d ed.): "Slang. A dull, stupid, or fatuous
>person." Random House is similar: "Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous,
>foolish, or inconsequential person." And Merriam-Webster's 9th New
>Collegiate Dictionary says essentially the same thing. (It's in another
>room and I'm too lazy to go get it.)
As they say, it's slang. And slang usually changes too fast to get into
dictionaries reliably. They shouldn't be blamed, really; they're not set
up to do a good job of slang or regional speech. You'd need maps and
timelines, like Crystal's encyclopedias, and American dictionaries aren't
into that.
But even if it didn't change, "jerk" doesn't have a literal meaning. It's
a term of opprobrium and indicates distaste rather than any inherent
property. If I call somebody a jerk, or consider them a jerk (whether I
confide my opinion or not), all I mean is that I find them unpleasant.
People I would call jerks are often stupid, but that's not necessary.
Invincible ignorance can generate just as much jerkiness.
-John Lawler http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/ Michigan Linguistics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." Language (1921)
Bill Baldwin
>As they say, it's slang. And slang usually changes too fast to get into
>dictionaries reliably. They shouldn't be blamed, really; they're not set
>up to do a good job of slang or regional speech. You'd need maps and
>timelines, like Crystal's encyclopedias, and American dictionaries aren't
>into that.
What are Crystal's encyclopedias? What dialects do they cover and how do they
work? This sounds cool.
Now that Internet access is so common, it should be easier to keep up with
fluid language and post monthly updates to a dictionary.
>But even if it didn't change, "jerk" doesn't have a literal meaning. It's
>a term of opprobrium and indicates distaste rather than any inherent
>property. If I call somebody a jerk, or consider them a jerk (whether I
>confide my opinion or not), all I mean is that I find them unpleasant.
>People I would call jerks are often stupid, but that's not necessary.
>Invincible ignorance can generate just as much jerkiness.
But you wouldn't use this term of opprobrium on just anyone for whom you
wished to indicate your distaste, right? I tend to save the word for those who
act with deliberate or inexcusably ignorant disregard for the rights or
feelings of others. (So there is a *kind* of ignorance that can enter in, but
only as the cause of jerkiness rather than the quality itself.) In this case
"jerk" has as literal a meaning as "brown noser" or "moron." We all agree more
or less on the qualities that elicit these terms of opprobrium. We simply
disagree on who possesses these qualities.
--
Bill Baldwin
Greg Goss
> The word "jerk" also means the third derivative of position with respect
>to time; that is, the time rate of change in acceleration.
Which reminds me. I haven't heard anything about Dean Drives (or
other high-jerk attempts to beat inertia) for a decade or so. Were
they finally silenced?
Greg Goss
>I was 13 or 14 when the film came out. I don't think I ever actually used
>"jerk" to mean a stupid or naive person. But as noted above, the context of
>the word, even in the ads, was so clear that I accepted that as Martin's
>meaning without any dissonance. In the absence of the context, I suspect I
>would have assumed as you did that the movie was about a contemptibly
>self-centered man who enjoyed screwing people over.
I was probably over 20 when the movie came out, and the word seemed
completely out of place. In my background, (urban Toronto mixed with
semi-rural BC), jerk had its current meaning even then.
Martin's movie is the only context where I've seen it mean a gomer.
John M. Lawler
> The word "jerk" also means the third derivative of position with respect
>to time; that is, the time rate of change in acceleration.
I've always thought that was "surge", not "jerk", though the metaphor
works either way. Actually, if it weren't a matter of tradition in
somebody else's science, I'd argue that "surge" is superior for a third
derivative, since "jerk" has definite connotations of a vector change not
only in acceleration, but also in direction ("He jerked me out of his
way."), instead of only acceleration in the same direction ("He surged
ahead of me"). But ordinary presuppositions don't necessarily affect
physical terms, as witness "work" and "curl", not to mention "charm" and
"strangeness".
Bill Baldwin
>John M. Lawler writes:
>
>>Bill Baldwin writes:
>
>>But even if it didn't change, "jerk" doesn't have a literal meaning. It's
>>a term of opprobrium and indicates distaste rather than any inherent
>>property. If I call somebody a jerk, or consider them a jerk (whether I
>>confide my opinion or not), all I mean is that I find them unpleasant.
>
>find unpleasant that I wouldn't call jerks.
My point too; although it may not be clear to the reader that you're
responding to a quote from John Lawler, not me.
>The phrase "he's really
>unpleasant to be around because he's so stupid, but he's not a jerk"
>would be perfectly understandable to people around me. The phrase
>"he's really an asshole, but he's not a jerk" would be deemed
>incomprehensible.
Exactly.
>The word has had a major shift in meaning.
>
>>People I would call jerks are often stupid, but that's not necessary.
>>Invincible ignorance can generate just as much jerkiness.
>
>To me, superior intelligence can generate just as much jerkiness.
Even more so. Stupidity is an extenuating circumstance. E.g. Suppose I lend a
friend a favorite book and he reads it in the tub and gets the pages all wet.
I'd be somewhat mollified if someone said, "He wasn't being a jerk; he's just
too clueless to know any better." Same action. Same consequences. But the
knowledge that the friend didn't do it out of selfish unconcern for my
property makes it a little easier to swallow.
--
Bill Baldwin
Jim Shaffer, Jr.
>Which reminds me. I haven't heard anything about Dean Drives (or
>other high-jerk attempts to beat inertia) for a decade or so. Were
>they finally silenced?
Every once in a while I see a message from someone who has just discovered one
of them and thinks he's God's gift to humanity. Naturally, they explain the
inability of them to get off the ground as merely insufficient power in their
current model. The standard way of getting them to shut up, then, seems to be
to ask them to hang it from the ceiling and call you when they get it to pull
the rope in one direction and keep it there.
--
If it looks like a hydra, and moves like a hydra, it's a hydra.