When is it acceptable to use the word "stingy"?
leno...@yahoo.com
person or organization as "stingy" are just being pushy and grabby.
After all, it's not "rude" for parents to give only the basics of
food, clothing, shelter and school supplies to their kids, especially
since they might be simply trying to get their kids to work for what
they want, so what real right do kids have even to THINK of their
parents as stingy?
Now, if we're talking about struggling homeless people and what
they're not getting in terms of government help, that's different.
Otherwise, I'm not sure it's really an acceptable word.
Lenona.
Gene Wirchenko
>That is, it seems to me that all too often, those who describe a
>person or organization as "stingy" are just being pushy and grabby.
"You are not spending your money on what I think you should spend
it on."
>After all, it's not "rude" for parents to give only the basics of
>food, clothing, shelter and school supplies to their kids, especially
>since they might be simply trying to get their kids to work for what
>they want, so what real right do kids have even to THINK of their
>parents as stingy?
Since part of the definition of stingy is being reluctant to
spend, they have every right to think so. I do not think that should
necessarily shake additional money loose.
>Now, if we're talking about struggling homeless people and what
>they're not getting in terms of government help, that's different.
>
>Otherwise, I'm not sure it's really an acceptable word.
It is quite acceptable. It can be used to propagandise, but
then, any word can be. Remember the thread on "articulate"?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
leno...@yahoo.com
> lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >After all, it's not "rude" for parents to give only the basics of
> >food, clothing, shelter and school supplies to their kids, especially
> >since they might be simply trying to get their kids to work for what
> >they want, so what real right do kids have even to THINK of their
> >parents as stingy?
>
> Since part of the definition of stingy is being reluctant to
> spend, they have every right to think so.
Yes, well, "reluctant to spend" is clearly not a pejorative
expression. "Stingy" clearly is. I think that's an important
difference. So, again, what right do they have to think of their
parents in a pejorative manner?
Granted, it WOULD be unloving for the parents to spend money regularly
on luxuries for themselves but not their children, just as your
significant other would eventually get rightfully annoyed after
noticing more than once that you spend money generously on your
friends but not on dating excursions. (Assuming, of course, that that
person spends generously on you.)
> I do not think that should
> necessarily shake additional money loose.
Yes, quite right.
And being rich does not mean one is obligated to, say, buy luxuries.
"Since I am known as a rich person, I feel I have to tip at least $5
each time I check my coat. On top of that, I would have to wear a very
expensive coat, and it would have to be insured. Added up, without a
topcoat, I save $20,000 a year."
Aristotle Onassis.
Lenona.
Gene Wirchenko
>On Nov 30, 3:03 pm, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>> lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> >After all, it's not "rude" for parents to give only the basics of
>> >food, clothing, shelter and school supplies to their kids, especially
>> >since they might be simply trying to get their kids to work for what
>> >they want, so what real right do kids have even to THINK of their
>> >parents as stingy?
>>
>> Since part of the definition of stingy is being reluctant to
>> spend, they have every right to think so.
>
>Yes, well, "reluctant to spend" is clearly not a pejorative
>expression. "Stingy" clearly is. I think that's an important
>difference. So, again, what right do they have to think of their
>parents in a pejorative manner?
They can think whatever they please. Etiquette has to do with
behaviour.
I can think someone is a fool. That is fine.
I can say that someone is a fool. Not a good idea in general.
>Granted, it WOULD be unloving for the parents to spend money regularly
>on luxuries for themselves but not their children, just as your
>significant other would eventually get rightfully annoyed after
>noticing more than once that you spend money generously on your
>friends but not on dating excursions. (Assuming, of course, that that
>person spends generously on you.)
Quite.
>> I do not think that should
>> necessarily shake additional money loose.
>
>Yes, quite right.
>
>And being rich does not mean one is obligated to, say, buy luxuries.
How to stay rich.
>"Since I am known as a rich person, I feel I have to tip at least $5
>each time I check my coat. On top of that, I would have to wear a very
>expensive coat, and it would have to be insured. Added up, without a
>topcoat, I save $20,000 a year."
>Aristotle Onassis.
I love it.
I squeeze my dollars. If someone insists that I must spend my
money, I hire a hitman. No, not really. Too expensive.
mm
wrote:
>leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>That is, it seems to me that all too often, those who describe a
>>person or organization as "stingy" are just being pushy and grabby.
>
> "You are not spending your money on what I think you should spend
>it on."
>
>>After all, it's not "rude" for parents to give only the basics of
>>food, clothing, shelter and school supplies to their kids, especially
>>since they might be simply trying to get their kids to work for what
>>they want, so what real right do kids have even to THINK of their
>>parents as stingy?
>
> Since part of the definition of stingy is being reluctant to
>spend, they have every right to think so.
The OP didn't say how old the kids are who might want to use the word
stingy. I will assume from 4 to 18.
It's hard to control what one thinks, but children should be taught
not to go on think-fests where all they do, even if for only short
times, is think bad things about other people, especially in the case
of their parents and familiy and friends. While 3-year olds seem not
to be able to think too deeply, by the time a kid is 6 he should be
starting to understand that there are two sides to a story. That he
needs to hear both sides before making up his mind. Certainly by the
time he's 12.
Where do kids get their impression of how much money should be spent
on them? Mostly a) from what their friends have, and b) from watching
tv, and c) if there parents discuss it with them, from their parents.
If he only has a and b, and he has 3 meals a day, and moderately
decent clothes to wear, and a house that's 68 degrees during the day,
66 during sleeping hours, he's in no position to decide if his parents
are stingy or not.
There is no end to what tv commercials promote and few of the
characters on tv are poor or even lower middle income. Most live
lives of upper middle income or more. And many of their friends will
either have parents with more money than their parents have, or
parents who spend more than they can afford on their kids.
While some kids might realize from friends who have less than they do
that their own parents are lavish or generous by comparison, the OP
was about those who would want to use the word stingy. Plainly, those
are not the kids who learned from friends who have less than they do.
So what is the other side that a child should learn to think about?
That he doesn't know how much his parents earn, how much they are in
debt (and how much they are spending to repay those debts) how much
they are saving for their retirement and for their kids' colllege
education, how much they are spending on or saving for expenses of the
kids' grandparents, and how much they are spending on charity. If the
kid makes a point to think about those things after he has thought his
paretns are stingy, he won't be so sure they are stingy anymore.
They should learn that it's easy to spend someone else's money, but
harder to earn the money oneself. And that if they learn to be
thrifty as their parents seem to be, they'll most likely never run out
of money, never have to depend on charity from someone else. If they
save enough money during good years to live on during bad years.
In general it's a bad and valueless practice to use general decriptive
negative words like stingy and hundreds of others. It adds nothing to
the conversation. If someone has reason to complain, he should be
specific, so that a real discussion can be held. The kid thinks he
should have X and the parents won't buy it for him.
If the kid is thinking that his parents are stingy because of how much
they spend on his brother or sister, or on charity, the kid is more
admirable, but the methods and reasons to avoid thinking his parents
are stingy still apply.
All that I've written up until now has been about thinking one's
parents are stingy. As far as using the word to describe one of them,
when talking to anyone other than that parent, absolutely not. It's
ungrateful, sounds demeaning, and it is a violation of Honor your
father and your mother. When talking to the parent one thinks is
stingy, it may be counterproductive to use the word, but otoh it may
best describe how the child thinks, and may be the only way the kid
can convey that, and he should try to say it respectfully.
Miss Elaine Eos
<d787fad3-b066-48ee...@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yes, well, "reluctant to spend" is clearly not a pejorative
> expression. "Stingy" clearly is.
I think it does a disservice to others, and the language in general, to
make such sweeping generalities. "Stingy" is a perfectly fine word,
with perfectly fine meaning*, which is sometimes used as a pejorative,
and sometimes not.
Perhaps because the word is popularly associated with the likes of
Ebenezer Scrooge it is thought to imply that the subject of the word is
Scrooge-like -- and that may be accused in a pejorative manner -- but it
is a shame to eschew such a colorful word merely because it was once
used to colorfully describe a colorful character. If we continue this
trend, we will be left with only the plain and dull words and will,
thereby, become plain and dull describers of the plain and dull.
Blech!
(How DID "stingy" come to be A Bad Thing, while "frugal" remains A Good
Thing -- they're the same thing!)
---
* http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stingy
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
leno...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> In article
> <d787fad3-b066-48ee-a952-281c11abc...@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Yes, well, "reluctant to spend" is clearly not a pejorative
> > expression. "Stingy" clearly is.
>
> I think it does a disservice to others, and the language in general, to
> make such sweeping generalities. "Stingy" is a perfectly fine word,
> with perfectly fine meaning*, which is sometimes used as a pejorative,
> and sometimes not.
When is it ever NOT used as a pejorative, unless the speaker is
joking?
Have YOU ever heard it used in a neutral manner, the way "frugal" or
"thrifty" might be? *I* haven't.
> Perhaps because the word is popularly associated with the likes of
> Ebenezer Scrooge it is thought to imply that the subject of the word is
> Scrooge-like -- and that may be accused in a pejorative manner -- but it
> is a shame to eschew such a colorful word merely because it was once
> used to colorfully describe a colorful character.
Er, "colorful" doesn't necessarily mean "positive."
>If we continue this
> trend, we will be left with only the plain and dull words and will,
> thereby, become plain and dull describers of the plain and dull.
>
> Blech!
What's so plain and dull about "frugal"? Hardly anyone uses it, so
that makes it practically exotic, after all.
> (How DID "stingy" come to be A Bad Thing, while "frugal" remains A Good
> Thing -- they're the same thing!)
See above. I think "stingy" was ALWAYS meant to be negative. The
question is, when is it truly appropriate to use? After all, it's
never inappropriate to say "frugal" or "thrifty," unless you're
talking to someone who ALWAYS thinks of frugality as a bad thing.
After all, there are other linguistic examples. As Linus once said:
"Stubbornness is a fault; tenacity is a virtue."
Lenona.
Miss Elaine Eos
<5266f5d7-b3f4-48b5...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I think it does a disservice to others, and the language in general, to
> > make such sweeping generalities. "Stingy" is a perfectly fine word,
> > with perfectly fine meaning*, which is sometimes used as a pejorative,
> > and sometimes not.
> Have YOU ever heard it used in a neutral manner, the way "frugal" or
> "thrifty" might be? *I* haven't.
Not only neutral, but positive.
I believe that the difference we are seeing has to do with the value
that different sub-cultures place on stinginess. In areas where such
things are highly valued, stingy, frugal and thrifty are all
complimentary. In fact, stingy, being the strongest of the three, is
the MOST complimentary. I would imagine that, in areas where folks
expect a bit more from others, thrifty, frugal and stingy are,
similarly, increasingly disparaging.
If someone spends a little less than you think they should, they're
negative-thrifty; a medium amount, negative-frugal, a lot, stingy. If
they save a little and you approve, they're positive-thrifty; a medium
amount and they're frugal; a lot, and they're stingy.
I believe that the spin is all in the speaker.
The other positive/negative spin might come from not the amount saved,
but the force with which it was saved. A thrifty person might use a
coupon to buy something; a frugal one might as the vendor for a better
price, perhaps pointing out some mar in the merchandise; one who is
stingy might announce "I will NOT pay a penny more than <X>", and hold
their ground, possibly forging the purchase on principle. Again, these
are either a positive or negative things, depending on your judgement,
but the words, themselves, are not judgmental, IMO.
mm
>
>
>> (How DID "stingy" come to be A Bad Thing, while "frugal" remains A Good
>> Thing -- they're the same thing!)
Since you ask, this is what dictionary.reference.com says
[Perhaps alteration of dialectal stingy, stinging, from sting.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
"niggardly, penurious, tight-fisted," 1659, possibly a dialectal
alteration of earlier stingy "biting, sharp, stinging" (c.1615), from
sting (v.). Back-formation stinge "a stingy person" is recorded from
1914. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Stin"gy\, a. [Compar. Stingier; superl. Stingiest.] [Probably from
sting, and meaning originally, stinging; hence, biting, nipping (of
the wind), churlish, avaricious; or cf. E. skinch.] Extremely close
and covetous; meanly avaricious; niggardly; miserly; penurious; as, a
stingy churl.
A stingy, narrow-hearted fellow that had a deal of choice fruit, had
not the heart to touch it till it began to be rotten. --L'estrange.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
>See above. I think "stingy" was ALWAYS meant to be negative. The
Seems so. Seems like it started that way. I like it when meanings
don't change.
>question is, when is it truly appropriate to use? After all, it's
>never inappropriate to say "frugal" or "thrifty," unless you're
>talking to someone who ALWAYS thinks of frugality as a bad thing
Frugal on the other hand doesn't even show up in
dictionary.reference.com ! I don't know why not. It's the first word
in 10 years that hasn't been there! Once in a printed dictionary,
there was a common word that wasn't there, but I don't think it was
frugal.
At m-w.com, it says:
Etymology:
Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin frugalis
virtuous, frugal, from frug-, frux fruit, value; akin to Latin frui to
enjoy Date: 1590
I guess that's why it's still a non-derogatory word. I like it when
meanings don't change.
mm
>
>
>> (How DID "stingy" come to be A Bad Thing, while "frugal" remains A Good
>> Thing -- they're the same thing!)
Since you ask, this is what dictionary.reference.com says
[Perhaps alteration of dialectal stingy, stinging, from sting.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
"niggardly, penurious, tight-fisted," 1659, possibly a dialectal
alteration of earlier stingy "biting, sharp, stinging" (c.1615), from
sting (v.). Back-formation stinge "a stingy person" is recorded from
1914. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Stin"gy\, a. [Compar. Stingier; superl. Stingiest.] [Probably from
sting, and meaning originally, stinging; hence, biting, nipping (of
the wind), churlish, avaricious; or cf. E. skinch.] Extremely close
and covetous; meanly avaricious; niggardly; miserly; penurious; as, a
stingy churl.
A stingy, narrow-hearted fellow that had a deal of choice fruit, had
not the heart to touch it till it began to be rotten. --L'estrange.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
>See above. I think "stingy" was ALWAYS meant to be negative. The
Seems so. Seems like it started that way. I like it when meanings
don't change.
>question is, when is it truly appropriate to use? After all, it's
>never inappropriate to say "frugal" or "thrifty," unless you're
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>Frugal on the other hand doesn't even show up in
>dictionary.reference.com ! I don't know why not. It's the first word
>in 10 years that hasn't been there! Once in a printed dictionary,
>there was a common word that wasn't there, but I don't think it was
>frugal.
I just tried it: five hits.
[snip]
mm
wrote:
>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Frugal on the other hand doesn't even show up in
>>dictionary.reference.com ! I don't know why not. It's the first word
>>in 10 years that hasn't been there! Once in a printed dictionary,
>>there was a common word that wasn't there, but I don't think it was
>>frugal.
>
> I just tried it: five hits.
>
OK, I just tried it too and also got 5 hits.
Just before I posted the last time, I had tried it three times, and
something came back each time, but nothing about the word.
leno...@yahoo.com
when is it fair/polite to use a pejorative to describe someone's
controlled spending habits? Aside from, as I hinted, strangers with
money not helping strangers in desperate need, or construction
companies cutting back to the point of putting homebuyers in danger
once they move in?
Lenona.
Gene Wirchenko
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:36:46 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net>
>wrote:
>
>>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Frugal on the other hand doesn't even show up in
>>>dictionary.reference.com ! I don't know why not. It's the first word
>>>in 10 years that hasn't been there! Once in a printed dictionary,
>>>there was a common word that wasn't there, but I don't think it was
>>>frugal.
>>
>> I just tried it: five hits.
>>
>OK, I just tried it too and also got 5 hits.
>
>Just before I posted the last time, I had tried it three times, and
>something came back each time, but nothing about the word.
I have not kept track of it, but dictionary.reference.com has
occasionally not had a word I thought that it ought to.
It reminds me of the old joke that "gullible" is not in the
dictionary.
mm
wrote:
>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:36:46 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>Frugal on the other hand doesn't even show up in
>>>>dictionary.reference.com ! I don't know why not. It's the first word
>>>>in 10 years that hasn't been there! Once in a printed dictionary,
>>>>there was a common word that wasn't there, but I don't think it was
>>>>frugal.
>>>
>>> I just tried it: five hits.
>>>
>>OK, I just tried it too and also got 5 hits.
>>
>>Just before I posted the last time, I had tried it three times, and
>>something came back each time, but nothing about the word.
>
> I have not kept track of it, but dictionary.reference.com has
>occasionally not had a word I thought that it ought to.
>
> It reminds me of the old joke that "gullible" is not in the
>dictionary.
Really! Let me go check on that.
>Sincerely,
>
>Gene Wirchenko
>