"Niggardly" is about to cost a teacher her job
NGonly
I invite each of you to examine this news story:
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=WM&Date=20020831&
Category=NEWS&ArtNo=208310308&Ref=AR&Profile=1004
The teacher, Stephanie Bell, has already been mistreated and made to apologize
for the ignorance of others.
The parent of a student at the school has made an issue of the use of the word
"niggardly" during a vocabulary lesson. The parent has been presented with
evidence of the origins, and with accurate explanations of the meaning of the
word, yet she continues in her witch hunt to have Ms. Bell removed from her
teaching position.
I find it extremely ironic that the mission statement of the school involved in
this situation is as follows:
"To provide a quality education that prepares all students to be productive and
adaptive citizens in a changing world."
If you feel moved to defend the teacher in this matter, please contact her
principal at:
Williams is the name of the elementary school and the principal is Dr. Susan
Hahn.
The telephone number for the school is 910-350-2150
The FAX number is 910-350-2168.
This information was obtained from the New Hanover County Schools web site at:
http://www.nhcs.k12.nc.us/schools.htm
If you have the time, please come to the defense of Ms. Bell.
Currently, the decision seems to be in the hands of the principal.
NGO
This address is configured to reject direct e-mail replies.
Please address all replies to the appropriate newsgroup.
Mark Wallace
> I invite each of you to examine this news story:
>
>
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=WM&Date=200
20831&
> Category=NEWS&ArtNo=208310308&Ref=AR&Profile=1004
Don't bother copying& pasting; I've tinyUrl-ed it:
http://tinyurl.com/1ak5
> The teacher, Stephanie Bell, has already been mistreated and made
> to apologize for the ignorance of others.
Quite right, too!
I mean, for all we know, she's a paediatrician!
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
meirman
<mwallace...@dse.nl> posted:
>NGonly wrote:
>> I invite each of you to examine this news story:
>>
>>
>http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=WM&Date=200
>20831&
>> Category=NEWS&ArtNo=208310308&Ref=AR&Profile=1004
>
>Don't bother copying& pasting; I've tinyUrl-ed it:
>http://tinyurl.com/1ak5
What's a tinyurl?
>
>> The teacher, Stephanie Bell, has already been mistreated and made
>> to apologize for the ignorance of others.
>
>Quite right, too!
>
>I mean, for all we know, she's a paediatrician!
The article, I think, does not at all describe the etymology of the
word. They should have.
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
Raymond S. Wise
news:20020904120129...@mb-mu.aol.com...
You are wrong to say that "The teacher, Stephanie Bell, has already been
mistreated and made to apologize for the ignorance of others." There is no
evidence in the article--only a conclusion from another person which appears
to be incorrect--that the person who complained about the word was ignorant
of its meaning.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Raymond S. Wise
news:al5d8h$1mri27$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
> NGonly wrote:
> > I invite each of you to examine this news story:
> >
> >
> http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=WM&Date=200
> 20831&
> > Category=NEWS&ArtNo=208310308&Ref=AR&Profile=1004
>
> Don't bother copying& pasting; I've tinyUrl-ed it:
> http://tinyurl.com/1ak5
>
> > The teacher, Stephanie Bell, has already been mistreated and made
> > to apologize for the ignorance of others.
>
> Quite right, too!
>
> I mean, for all we know, she's a paediatrician!
>
> --
> Mark Wallace
As I pointed out in my reply to the person who posted the original message,
there is no evidence that the person who complained about the word was
ignorant of its meaning.
In this case, anyway, it appears to be a question of associations rather
than meaning. The beginning of the word "niggardly" is pronounced exactly
like a strongly taboo word.
Consider the swastika. I don't believe even people who are fully aware of
the meaning of the swastika prior to the rise of the Nazis in Germany--and a
meaning which it still has in Asia--would be happy to see a new building go
up with swastikas as decoration.
In another case, the word "coney" ( = "rabbit" ) which appears in the King
James edition of the Bible began to be pronounced in a spelling
pronunciation to rhyme with "phoney" because the historical pronunciation,
"cunny" was too close to the diminutive form for "cunt."
Mark Wallace
> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:42:29 +0200 "Mark
> Wallace" <mwallace...@dse.nl> posted:
>
>> NGonly wrote:
>>> I invite each of you to examine this news story:
>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=WM&Date=200
>> 20831&
>>> Category=NEWS&ArtNo=208310308&Ref=AR&Profile=1004
>>
>> Don't bother copying& pasting; I've tinyUrl-ed it:
>> http://tinyurl.com/1ak5
>
> What's a tinyurl?
A wonderful addition to the NG Url-posting toolbox:
http://tinyurl.com/
If you drag it to your 'Links' toolbar, it creates a button; then
all you have to do is click the button when you're looking at a page
that has a long Url, and it instantly gived you a nice little one.
It hasn't been going long; its links are only four characters long,
so far (mind you, that means it's processed a *lot* of Urls).
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
Little girl lost?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________
Howard G Walker
read. If not, their vocabulary is limited to 6-letter words, plurals, possessives,
and contractions included.
It would be best for the teacher to resign and get a better paying job where the
word "niggardly" is understood. She could use the incident as a "certificate of
literacy" on her resume.
David Buttery
<snip>
> In this case, anyway, it appears to be a question of associations
> rather than meaning. The beginning of the word "niggardly" is
> pronounced exactly like a strongly taboo word.
So is "country". That starts with the most strongly taboo word in
English, yet no-one (AFAIK) complains about that.
There was a "niggardly" story in the British press a while ago,
though I can't recall the details just now.
> Consider the swastika. I don't believe even people who are fully
> aware of the meaning of the swastika prior to the rise of the
> Nazis in Germany--and a meaning which it still has in Asia--would
> be happy to see a new building go up with swastikas as decoration.
<snip>
Swastikas are still used on occasion, at least here in the UK. In
fact, I remember a feature some years ago on the BBC children's
programme "Blue Peter" in which some Hindu children were
demonstrating their artwork, and several pieces contained swastikas.
The presenters took great care to explain why.
"The Swastika continues to hold a religious significance for the
Hindus"
http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/omkar.html
Going back to the case referred to at the top of the thread, I think
it would be reasonable to say that Ms Bell probably erred in using
the word with such young children (the deputy superintendent for the
New Hanover County Schools makes a point of mentioning context), but
to pay with her job is wildly over the top.
On a vaguely related note, people from Penistone and Scunthorpe (both
Yorkshire) have suffered from stupid filtering software for years.
It's a good job the word isn't spelt "niggerdly", really....
--
The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard
(including the Kinlet Park circuit - still in alpha, but driveable)
Idiotic deep-linking restrictions: http://www.dontlink.com
Raymond S. Wise
news:Xns928010176A2ED...@130.133.1.4...
> "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote on 04 Sep 2002:
>
> <snip>
> > In this case, anyway, it appears to be a question of associations
> > rather than meaning. The beginning of the word "niggardly" is
> > pronounced exactly like a strongly taboo word.
>
> So is "country". That starts with the most strongly taboo word in
> English, yet no-one (AFAIK) complains about that.
>
I can't agree with you about "the most strongly taboo word in English." That
would be "nigger," despite the fact that it is does have a neutral use among
some Black Americans.
In any case, tolerance for words which bring up negative associations varies
from one society to another, and from one sub-group to another within a
society. You've heard, no doubt, about the town where one says "Heaven-o"
instead of "Hello." On a more serious note, language taboos which lead to
avoidance of certain usages have also occurred in Hebrew and in Japanese.
Another case of an association with a taboo word is that of the word
"squaw," which has been disappearing from geographic names in large part
because its opponents make arguments against it based upon a false etymology
which was inspired by the resemblance between that word and taboo words in
certain American Indian languages.
I have no respect for arguments based upon ignorance. But arguments based
upon association and the avoidance of taboo subjects are not a matter of
ignorance but of human psychology, and they cannot be dismissed out of hand
if you intend to show respect for people.
Mark Wallace
]
> Why? It would be useless. Probably neither the Superintendent nor
> the Principal can read. If not, their vocabulary is limited to 6-
> letter words, plurals, possessives, and contractions included.
>
> It would be best for the teacher to resign and get a better
> paying job where the word "niggardly" is understood. She could
> use the incident as a "certificate of literacy" on her resume.
Not really. She had to look it up.
I've just done a 'text in files' search of my personal
directories -- several million words -- and found that I have only
used the word 'niggardly' twice. Both times, it was used
appropriately, and neither time could its usage have been taken to
mean anything even remotely like 'nigger'.
I was horrified to find that there were a couple of hundred
instances of 'nigger' - I didn't think I was *that* bad! -- but it
turned out that most of them were part of 'snigger'.
Everyone know what 'snigger' means?
Who can we put out of work, for using it?
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Doctor Charles.
You can trust him.
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/doc01.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Wallace
But where does it stop, Raymond?
And where does freedom of speech -- especially literate speech --
start?
That someone can lose her livelihood because of the prejudices of
others runs contrary to anything I believe in.
meirman
<mwallace...@dse.nl> posted:
>meirman wrote:
>> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:42:29 +0200 "Mark
>> Wallace" <mwallace...@dse.nl> posted:
>>>
>>> Don't bother copying& pasting; I've tinyUrl-ed it:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/1ak5
>>
>> What's a tinyurl?
>
>A wonderful addition to the NG Url-posting toolbox:
>http://tinyurl.com/
>If you drag it to your 'Links' toolbar, it creates a button; then
>all you have to do is click the button when you're looking at a page
>that has a long Url, and it instantly gived you a nice little one.
>It hasn't been going long; its links are only four characters long,
>so far (mind you, that means it's processed a *lot* of Urls).
Very interesting. I'll try to use it.
Checking out my election dilemma, mentioned in the other thread, I
found a page which shows which congressional district I'm in by
entering my address or looking at a map. They solicited comments and
since two of the functions didn't work, I wrote them and the url where
I was 241 bytes long!
It turns out I am as of two months ago in the district of those two
guys and one gal I don't like. But it was close. The boundary is the
stream which is only about 30 feet from the edge of my backyard.
The whole district is a real gerrymander. And this was after the
court said that the one the legislature drew was biased. I'd like to
see that one. I think the webpage is supposed to show that one too
but that feature didn't seem to work either. (And zoom in worked but
zoom out didn't!)
Raymond S. Wise
"Prejudices" seems inappropriate to me here. Is it "prejudiced" for a Jew to
have a visceral reaction to seeing a swastika, even if he sees it on a
temple in India?
Come to think of it, this would be a good time for me to mention something
that I've recently been discussing in a French Usenet newsgroup. In both
French and English, the word "Aryan" ("aryen" in French) has been
effectively replaced by "Indo-European." Furthermore, the English term
"Arian," for a person born under the astrological sign of "Aries" appears to
have dropped out of usage. (No problem with French on this point, they use a
completely different word for "Aries": "le Bélier.") And the religious
philosophy called "Arianism" (named after Arius of Alexandria) appears to
have only designations which are problematical: On the one hand, "Arianism"
is confused with Nazi philosophy--I've personally seen others demonstrate
such confusion when I have used the word "Arianism. (This would be even
worse for the cognate word "Arian," [and French "arien"] meaning "Arianist,"
which I suspect has fallen out of use for the exact same reason that "Aryan"
has.) On the other hand, "unitarianism," which would seem to be an apt
description of the philosophy, is a problem because of the existence of the
Unitarian Church in America, which is nowadays distinguished more by the
fact that it has no dogma (and thus agnostics and atheists can be members)
than that it rejects Trinitarianism. I would be delighted if I could discuss
Arianism without anyone misunderstanding me, whether I used the term
"Arianism" or the term "unitarianism," but that is simply not the situation
at present.
Then there's the words "fundamentalist" and "fundamentalism," about which
I've been involved in a discussion in an Esperanto Usenet newsgroup. The
belief that "All Muslims are fundamentalists" is inaccurate, but many people
are led to believe it because at some point they became convinced that
"fundamentalist" means "literalist," whereas it is actually used to describe
a certain type of religious extremism of which literalism is but one
component. I think it likely that people have been mislead because they take
"fundamentalism" to mean "getting back to the fundamentals." But there is no
logical way that the "fundamentals" of a religion can be identified. Even in
protestant Fundamentalism, not all Fundamentalists follow every belief
outlined in "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," the series of
pamphlets which led to the founding of the movement.
(Note, if, at some point in the future, "fundamentalist" is indeed limited
to mean "a literalist concerning the holy scripture of a religion," I would
of course have to accept that meaning. But as the word is currently used,
that is emphatically *not* its meaning.)
My point in all this is that associations affect how words are perceived,
and eventually may even lead to changes in meaning. It is certainly
worthwhile for a person to know how some of the words which we have been
discussing are used, and how they have been used in the past, but deciding
at what point a child should be taught a given word is a judgment call.
By the way, when do you think the next filmed version of "The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn" in which the word "nigger" is used will appear? Not soon,
I bet.
mb
> from one society to another, and from one sub-group to another within a
> society. You've heard, no doubt, about the town where one says "Heaven-o"
> instead of "Hello." On a more serious note, language taboos which lead to
> avoidance of certain usages have also occurred in Hebrew and in Japanese.
Is there any other society today where this absurdity is at the level
of the US of A, with its roosters and donkeys and he-cows? That
"heaven-o" is extremely serious. Look at the practical consequences.
> I have no respect for arguments based upon ignorance. But arguments based
> upon association and the avoidance of taboo subjects are not a matter of
> ignorance but of human psychology, and they cannot be dismissed out of hand
> if you intend to show respect for people.
What respect do bigots deserve? And of course any taboo is a matter of
ignorance, i.e. deepest word magic mentality. Respect, my ass.
david56
>
> I was horrified to find that there were a couple of hundred
> instances of 'nigger' - I didn't think I was *that* bad! -- but it
> turned out that most of them were part of 'snigger'.
>
> Everyone know what 'snigger' means?
> Who can we put out of work, for using it?
You, apparently.
<snigger>
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the
spammers.
david56
>
> "David Buttery" <gplscrapya...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns928010176A2ED...@130.133.1.4...
> > "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote on 04 Sep 2002:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > In this case, anyway, it appears to be a question of associations
> > > rather than meaning. The beginning of the word "niggardly" is
> > > pronounced exactly like a strongly taboo word.
> >
> > So is "country". That starts with the most strongly taboo word in
> > English, yet no-one (AFAIK) complains about that.
> >
>
> I can't agree with you about "the most strongly taboo word in English." That
> would be "nigger," despite the fact that it is does have a neutral use among
> some Black Americans.
I would disagree with your disagreement, at least in the UK. One
occasionally hears "nigger" on the radio in these parts, either from the
likes of Chris Rock, from old recordings of Richard Prior, or from a
journalist discussing the resignation of a lady after she mentioned the
Agatha Christie novel "Ten Little Niggars". But they never say "cunt"
on the radio, even when everybody knows what they mean. I've heard
Jennie Murray on Womans Hour go to great lengths to make sure that her
guests don't utter the word (WH is live).
david56
Oooh, no, the good borough of Scunthorpe is in Lincolnshire.
Howard G Walker
This was my first encounter of a weird kind.
Mark Wallace
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>>
>> I was horrified to find that there were a couple of hundred
>> instances of 'nigger' - I didn't think I was *that* bad! -- but
>> it turned out that most of them were part of 'snigger'.
>>
>> Everyone know what 'snigger' means?
>> Who can we put out of work, for using it?
>
> You, apparently.
>
> <snigger>
Yes. I shall begin disciplinary proceedings against myself
immediately.
Mark Wallace
Of course it is. 'Prejudicial' holds no prejudices. If you want to
say that someone is *justifiably* prejudiced against something, then
use an adverb ('justifiably' fits the bill quite well, in this
instance).
<snipped aryan and moslem stuff that's way out of my field>
> My point in all this is that associations affect how words are
> perceived, and eventually may even lead to changes in meaning. It
> is certainly worthwhile for a person to know how some of the
> words which we have been discussing are used, and how they have
> been used in the past, but deciding at what point a child should
> be taught a given word is a judgment call.
But if someone associates 'niggardly' with 'nigger' then he is
making a damned poor association, and should be corrected, not
lauded as a keeper of good standards.
There are only so many sounds and phonetic combinations available to
us.
Most words have 'audible associations' with other words.
Post birds lav 'edible mass hose he stations' zither the turds.
That we should avoid appropriate wording because our words *sound
like* other words is a ridiculous precept. No-one would ever be
able to say anything at all.
> By the way, when do you think the next filmed version of "The
> Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" in which the word "nigger" is
> used will appear? Not soon, I bet.
Perhaps, but it won't be kept out of the script for fear of
upsetting niggardly misers, so the point is immaterial.
If Aunty BeeB were to dramatise it, however, the word would probably
(and rightly) stay.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Doctor Charles.
Chapter Three is now up.
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/doc01.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Alan Jones
>
>
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=WM&Date=20020831&Ca
tegory=NEWS&ArtNo=208310308&Ref=AR&Profile=1004
Having done so, I now wonder whether there's more to this than I'd first
thought. According to the report, the teacher said: 'The word came up Aug.
20 during a comparison of two characters from different stories. One
character was a Hispanic girl; the other was a white boy. The class talked
briefly about the proper words to use **when describing a person's
race**...Then, the class discussed other ways to describe people. One child
described the boy as stingy. Ms. Bell said she thought this would be a good
chance to find a word for the day, a practice she has used this year. "The
idea for the word of the day is to pick part of the curriculum or something
you can extend from it," she said. She began looking for a synonym for
"stingy"' - and found 'niggardly'.
Is it slightly odd that this unrelated word came up when the class had been
discussing words to describe a person's race? Other possibilities - one of
them probably more appropriate in context - would have been "mean",
"selfish", "ungenerous". . . If Ms Bell wasn't being - shall we say? -
mischievous, she does seem to have behaved with rash insensitivity -
supposing, of course, that the report is faithful.
I was going to write to the Principal in her support, but have changed my
mind.
Alan Jones
.
Odysseus
>
> Yes. I shall begin disciplinary proceedings against myself
> immediately.
>
--Odysseus
Tony Cooper
> That we should avoid appropriate wording because our words *sound
> like* other words is a ridiculous precept. No-one would ever be
> able to say anything at all.
Once, at a party where there were several African-American couples, I
was furiously scratching my leg. I noticed one of the guests noticing
me, and said "Sorry, chigger bites." She frowned and hissed "Don't say
things like that here!" and glanced meaningfully at one of the
African-American couples.
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Tony Cooper
"mb" <azy...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> Is there any other society today where this absurdity is at the level
> of the US of A, with its roosters and donkeys and he-cows? That
> "heaven-o" is extremely serious. Look at the practical consequences.
Muslim societies. We only fire people. They stone them to death.
Raymond S. Wise
news:al805e$1nmbnf$1...@ID-113505.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallace...@dse.nl> wrote in message
> news:al78rr$1nnm0p$1@ID-
>
> > That we should avoid appropriate wording because our words *sound
> > like* other words is a ridiculous precept. No-one would ever be
> > able to say anything at all.
>
> Once, at a party where there were several African-American couples, I
> was furiously scratching my leg. I noticed one of the guests noticing
> me, and said "Sorry, chigger bites." She frowned and hissed "Don't say
> things like that here!" and glanced meaningfully at one of the
> African-American couples.
>
Back when I was in college, I was talking with a Mexican friend about the
British word "knickers." One of my roommates, who was black, came in upon
the midst of the conversation and took exception to my choice of words. I
had to quickly explain what word I was talking about. "Knickers" was a
relatively new word to all three of us, and I believe that if I had been in
my roommate's position, I would have reacted similarly. I certainly *hope* I
would have, because it was only through discussing the matter that the
misunderstanding got straightened out.
Mark Wallace
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallace...@dse.nl> wrote in message
> news:al78rr$1nnm0p$1@ID-
>
>> That we should avoid appropriate wording because our words *sound
>> like* other words is a ridiculous precept. No-one would ever be
>> able to say anything at all.
>
> Once, at a party where there were several African-American
> couples, I was furiously scratching my leg. I noticed one of the
> guests noticing me, and said "Sorry, chigger bites." She frowned
> and hissed "Don't say things like that here!" and glanced
> meaningfully at one of the African-American couples.
She was either overly sensitive, or had an absolutely filthy mind.
Howard G Walker
Niggard is 400 years older than the N-word. It seems that everyone would know
the difference by now.
[I was probably in my 30s before I encountered the word.]
Raymond S. Wise
news:3D77AE7A...@att.net...
Why? I'm sure there are plenty of very old words, still used or at least
recognized by highly educated people, which are unknown to the average
person. Some such words have likely disappeared from everyday use because of
bad associations with other, non-related words, such as the word "Arian"
meaning "born under the sign of Aries" which I mentioned in another post as
having likely fallen out of use because it sounds too close to "Aryan," a
word spoiled by association with Nazi racial crackpottery. For that matter,
"Aryan" itself, once used to describe the ancestor of most of the European
languages, and used to describe the people who spoke it, has been replaced
by "Indo-European."
Raymond S. Wise
news:unfeh8l...@corp.supernews.com...
No one has yet mentioned the case of the word "inflammable" as used to
describe physical items which might tend to catch on fire. As far as I know,
no one has demonstrated that people actually had made serious errors in
assuming an item labeled "inflammable" was nonflammable, but it was
certainly the danger that they *might* do so which led people, including,
early on, American insurance companies, to call for "inflammable" to be
replaced with the cognate "flammable." Federal labeling laws came later.
Alasdair Baxter
<gplscrapya...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On a vaguely related note, people from Penistone and Scunthorpe (both
>Yorkshire) have suffered from stupid filtering software for years.
>It's a good job the word isn't spelt "niggerdly", really....
Penistone is in Yorkshire but Scunthorpe is in North Lincolnshire,
South of the Humber.
--
Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263
"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"
mb
> > of the US of A, with its roosters and donkeys and he-cows? That
> > "heaven-o" is extremely serious. Look at the practical consequences.
> Muslim societies. We only fire people. They stone them to death.
Concluding from hearsay - no stonings for similar-sounding words. At
least linguistically speaking, the atmosphere there is far more
relaxed.
mb
> have a visceral reaction to seeing a swastika, even if he sees it on a
> temple in India?
Of course it is. Indicates a reaction out of either crass ignorance or
irrational bias, which is the very definition of prejudice. By the
way, I listened to a lecture on the Indian swastika in 1969, hosted by
the local antifascist partisans' association in Milan; they didn't
think ignorance was a good thing.
<snip>
> My point in all this is that associations affect how words are perceived,
> and eventually may even lead to changes in meaning. It is certainly
> worthwhile for a person to know how some of the words which we have been
> discussing are used, and how they have been used in the past, but deciding
> at what point a child should be taught a given word is a judgment call.
You bet the changes will be stabilized one day. Point is, they aren't
yet. And as long as the "old" denotation is not hopelessly obsolete,
there is no call to yield to ignorance if you're not in politics, in
other walks of life where you are forced to address the lowest common
denominator, or addressing a population who wouldn't be able to follow
you. As usual, the question is who you are speaking or writing for.
Howard G Walker
day when they attained the age of twelve and graduated from knickers to long
pants.
Polar
<Walker...@att.net> wrote:
>My how things change! There was a time when all boys in the U S dreamed of the
>day when they attained the age of twelve and graduated from knickers to long
>pants.
They called them "sans culottes" in the French Revolution.
--
Polar
Tony Cooper
In Afghanistan, the new Minister of Vice and Virtue (I think that's his
title, and it surely will be a He) recently banned women from being
heard singing on the radio.
Mark Wallace
Say larger not bigger
A man's a miner not a digger
And if you're playing baseball you must hit, not bunt
Never, ever snigger
Quote a number, not a figure
Or you'll be picked on by some stupid ....
Nancy Anderson
NGonly wrote:
>
> I invite each of you to examine this news story:
>
> http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=WM&Date=20020831&
> Category=NEWS&ArtNo=208310308&Ref=AR&Profile=1004
>
> The teacher, Stephanie Bell, has already been mistreated and made to apologize
> for the ignorance of others.
>
> The parent of a student at the school has made an issue of the use of the word
> "niggardly" during a vocabulary lesson.
The words "chicanery" and -- for some reason -- "grizzled" have
generated similar controversy. As I recall, they were both used
(correctly) by newspaper reporters in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Depending on its relevance to the story, "grizzled" could be seen as
ageist. However, the person complaining about it simply didn't seem to
know what it meant and thought the word itself sounded ugly or offensive
somehow.
Nancy Anderson
Raymond S. Wise
> > "Prejudices" seems inappropriate to me here. Is it "prejudiced" for a
Jew to
> > have a visceral reaction to seeing a swastika, even if he sees it on a
> > temple in India?
>
> Of course it is. Indicates a reaction out of either crass ignorance or
> irrational bias, which is the very definition of prejudice. By the
> way, I listened to a lecture on the Indian swastika in 1969, hosted by
> the local antifascist partisans' association in Milan; they didn't
> think ignorance was a good thing.
>
For the purpose of my example, I am quite willing to imagine a Jew who has
complete knowledge of the swastika in all its historical aspects and with
complete knowledge of its current use, who nevertheless has a visceral
reaction of disgust when first spotting the swastika, even when it is
located on the side of a temple in India. I prefer to reserve the word
"prejudice" to demonstrably harmful forms of irrationality. Useful forms of
irrationality, such as appreciating the taste of an apple or admiring the
appearance of a potential sexual partner do not deserve, in my opinion, to
be called "prejudices." The reaction to the swastika which I describe is
entirely within the bounds of normal, useful--or at least potentially
useful--irrationality. I would, of course, expect many non-Jewish Westerners
to react in the exact same manner.
You are asking too much of people if you expect them to be entirely
rational, à la Mr. Spock of Star Trek.
> <snip>
>
> > My point in all this is that associations affect how words are
perceived,
> > and eventually may even lead to changes in meaning. It is certainly
> > worthwhile for a person to know how some of the words which we have been
> > discussing are used, and how they have been used in the past, but
deciding
> > at what point a child should be taught a given word is a judgment call.
>
> You bet the changes will be stabilized one day. Point is, they aren't
> yet. And as long as the "old" denotation is not hopelessly obsolete,
> there is no call to yield to ignorance if you're not in politics, in
> other walks of life where you are forced to address the lowest common
> denominator, or addressing a population who wouldn't be able to follow
> you. As usual, the question is who you are speaking or writing for.
In fact, I am strongly opposed to the appeal to the lowest common
denominator, as I have made explicitly clear in previous posts which I have
written for Usenet groups. But there is a difference between demonstrating
good judgment and appealing to the lowest common denominator.
meirman
Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> posted:
>"mb" <azy...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:9cc8f152.02090...@posting.google.com...
>> "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote in message
>> > "Prejudices" seems inappropriate to me here. Is it "prejudiced" for a
>Jew to
>> > have a visceral reaction to seeing a swastika, even if he sees it on a
>> > temple in India?
>>
>> Of course it is.
Did you notice the word 'visceral'?
So as to not post twice, I'll assume you did and wrote what you did
anyway.
>> Indicates a reaction out of either crass ignorance or
>> irrational bias, which is the very definition of prejudice.
That's the "pre" but the "judice" is about judgment. A visceral
reaction is one which bypasses judgment.
>> By the
>> way, I listened to a lecture on the Indian swastika in 1969, hosted by
>> the local antifascist partisans' association in Milan; they didn't
>> think ignorance was a good thing.
And no one does. And the Jews I've discussed this with were well
aware of the symbols use by Indians. But were someone to turn a
corner and see one when he didn't expect it, such a reaction would be
reasonable. It probably wouldn't be repeated when he saw the next one
that day, because by that time he would remember where he was and what
it wasn't intended to mean.
>
>
>For the purpose of my example, I am quite willing to imagine a Jew who has
>complete knowledge of the swastika in all its historical aspects and with
>complete knowledge of its current use, who nevertheless has a visceral
>reaction of disgust when first spotting the swastika, even when it is
>located on the side of a temple in India.
You made a very good point, and you repeat it here. Absolutely. If
one believes in evolution, visceral reactions to visual stimuli far
predate logical ones.
And whether one does or not, everyone has a few occasions where he can
see that the reaction to what one sees can occur faster than one can
think about it.
>I prefer to reserve the word
>"prejudice" to demonstrably harmful forms of irrationality. Useful forms of
>irrationality, such as appreciating the taste of an apple or admiring the
>appearance of a potential sexual partner do not deserve, in my opinion, to
>be called "prejudices."
Interesting point.
>The reaction to the swastika which I describe is
>entirely within the bounds of normal, useful--or at least potentially
>useful--irrationality. I would, of course, expect many non-Jewish Westerners
>to react in the exact same manner.
>
>You are asking too much of people if you expect them to be entirely
>rational, à la Mr. Spock of Star Trek.
>
And he was only like that when he was on the ship and on camera.
>> <snip>
>>
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
David Buttery
> The words "chicanery" and -- for some reason -- "grizzled" have
> generated similar controversy.
<snip>
"Chicanery"? I give up - why?
--
The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard
(including the Kinlet Park circuit - still in alpha, but driveable)
Idiotic deep-linking restrictions: http://www.dontlink.com
David Buttery
> Oooh, no, the good borough of Scunthorpe is in Lincolnshire.
Whoops! How did I do that? I don't suppose saying "Humberside" would be
any better? No, thought not.
David Buttery
[first syllable of "country"]
> I can't agree with you about "the most strongly taboo word in
> English." That would be "nigger," despite the fact that it is does
> have a neutral use among some Black Americans.
Not in (my part of) the UK. "Nigger" is *much* more likely to be
broadcast than "cunt" on network radio and TV - documentaries might
allow "nigger", but "cunt" is very rarely allowed through (except in
The Guardian newspaper, which has a policy of printing just about
everything in full if it's a direct quote).
> In any case, tolerance for words which bring up negative
> associations varies from one society to another, and from one
> sub-group to another within a society. You've heard, no doubt,
> about the town where one says "Heaven-o" instead of "Hello." On a
> more serious note, language taboos which lead to avoidance of
> certain usages have also occurred in Hebrew and in Japanese.
<snip>
This is true, of course. A few years ago, a British teacher got into
some trouble in Turkey because of his hesitant style. He didn't
realise that the word "Um" sounded very similar to a Turkish word for
(I think) part of the female genitalia.
> I have no respect for arguments based upon ignorance. But
> arguments based upon association and the avoidance of taboo
> subjects are not a matter of ignorance but of human psychology,
> and they cannot be dismissed out of hand if you intend to show
> respect for people.
I don't dismiss them out of hand, but I don't think "niggardly"
requires all that much consideration before being allowed through. I
don't use the word (much) myself, but that's nothing to do with its
theoretically racist overtones.
David Buttery
> Penistone is in Yorkshire but Scunthorpe is in North Lincolnshire,
> South of the Humber.
Yikes! So it is. What a mistake to make!
Peter Duncanson
<gplscrapya...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Nancy Anderson <nand...@mnns.com> wrote on 06 Sep 2002:
>
>> The words "chicanery" and -- for some reason -- "grizzled" have
>> generated similar controversy.
><snip>
>
>"Chicanery"? I give up - why?
At a guess, those unfamiliar with it assume that it is a
derogatory word relating to a "Chicano" - an American of Mexican
origin.
--
Peter D.
UK
(posting from a.e.u)
Raymond S. Wise
news:qrmgnucc9cc5gbl0q...@4ax.com...
> In alt.english.usage on Fri, 6 Sep 2002 00:45:29 -0500 "Raymond S.
> Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> posted:
>
[...]
Replying to "mb" <azy...@mail.com> , I wrote:
> >
> >You are asking too much of people if you expect them to be entirely
> >rational, à la Mr. Spock of Star Trek.
> >
> And he was only like that when he was on the ship and on camera.
>
The Vulcans were, in fact, odd characters. My older brother and I, and I'm
sure many other fans, realized at the time of the first series that the
Vulcans could not be said in any real sense to be "logical" (or unemotional,
which was often what was the meaning intended). Later series picked up on
this idea, portraying all the Vulcans, not just Spock, as attempting to
control their natural emotions (except for a few rebellious individuals who
dropped the whole unemotional thing).
Howard G Walker
Another guess: The cans kept under beds at night when privies were the
rage.
Howard G Walker
game "bridge" will have to be changed.
Why? No more bidding in spades.
And you'd better ask for a shovel at the hardware store.
david56
>
> david56 <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote on 05 Sep 2002:
>
> > Oooh, no, the good borough of Scunthorpe is in Lincolnshire.
>
> Whoops! How did I do that? I don't suppose saying "Humberside" would be
> any better? No, thought not.
I have to admit I had to look it up as I thought it might be in
Humberside.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the
spammers.
mb
characterize prejudice, except if one has a, ehm... visceral,
propensity to excuse the irrational, i.e. is prejudiced in favor of
it.
> That's the "pre" but the "judice" is about judgment. A visceral
> reaction is one which bypasses judgment.
Agreed again. That's a good description of prejudice in its current
acception (excepting people with an axe to grind).
<snip - re non-nazi swastika>
> And no one does. And the Jews I've discussed this with were well
> aware of the symbols use by Indians. But were someone to turn a
> corner and see one when he didn't expect it, such a reaction would be
> reasonable.
A visceral reaction reasonable? Hmmm. Expected, perhaps. I have it
too, having lost most of my family in the Resistance. However, were I
to disturb my neighbor because of an innocuous symbol I'd be a
barbarian.
...
> >I prefer to reserve the word
> >"prejudice" to demonstrably harmful forms of irrationality. Useful forms of
> >irrationality, such as appreciating the taste of an apple or admiring the
> >appearance of a potential sexual partner do not deserve, in my opinion, to
> >be called "prejudices."
Irrelevant examples. The line gets drawn by the social consequences of
one's irrational preferences. What do you say when your sexually
motivated admiration of appearance interferes with, say, your hiring
practices?
> >The reaction to the swastika which I describe is
> >entirely within the bounds of normal, useful--or at least potentially
> >useful--irrationality. I would, of course, expect many non-Jewish Westerners
> >to react in the exact same manner.
Useful my eye and foot. Here we have a teacher sacked because she
properly used an English word in a perfectly appropriate context. Lots
of other people lost jobs, freedom and life because of mob prejudice
re words or other symbols. Useful.
> >You are asking too much of people if you expect them to be entirely
> >rational
I don't think many people expect them to. However, in a few civilized
societies people are certainly expected to keep their irrationality
from interfering with other peoples' rights. This kind of slippery
casuistic has always been used to excuse the rape of language by
propaganda.
Raymond S. Wise
news:3D78D8BC...@att.net...
You're joking, of course, but the fact is, it is entirely a question of the
strength of the taboo in force. I pointed out in another post how the
pronunciation of the word "coney," meaning "rabbit," was altered from a form
rhyming with "honey" to a form rhyming with "phoney" because the previous
pronunciation was a homophone of a strongly taboo word. There are so many
variations of minced oaths which originated from religious terms ("Zounds!",
"Jiminy Cricket!", "Holy Toledo!", "Gee!", etc.) only because oaths based
upon religious terms were once considered by English people to be extremely
strong (as they currently are in Canadian French, or so I've read).
If our society were to develop an even stronger taboo against racial slurs
than it currently has, "spade" might very well disappear as you have joked.
We can now argue against such a taboo, because it is not now in force, but
once it was in place, it would probably be a waste of effort to argue
against it. Remember the experience of the white stand-up comic Lenny Bruce,
who attempted to take the negative force out of the word "nigger" by using
it on stage. His experiment failed: The force is still very much there.
Raymond S. Wise
> > Did you notice the word 'visceral'?
> Yes. Amplified it. 'Visceral' is the most appropriate concept to
> characterize prejudice, except if one has a, ehm... visceral,
> propensity to excuse the irrational, i.e. is prejudiced in favor of
> it.
>
No, "visceral" is used to describe a particular type of strong emotion which
is very strongly a part of human nature and the nature of our pre-human
ancestors. Emotions evolved for a reason. Let me give an example. When I was
a child, I once ate a large amount of cold spinach out of one of those
institutional-size cans (ours was a large family). I got sick, and for a
long time did not care for spinach. This was an entirely understandable
reaction. Such a reaction evolved to protect people from natural poisons.
Now, I eventually got over my aversion to spinach, and reasoning about the
matter likely helped me to do so, but that is no justification for
criticizing the original reaction.
It is natural for things, including symbols, associated with extremely
harmful experiences to cause one to have a visceral reaction. I see no
reason to confuse prejudice with this sort of natural reaction. One is
prejudiced when one may reasonably be expected to act differently than one
is acting. But a person with Post Tramatic Stress Syndrome is *not*
prejudiced: he may *not* reasonably be expected to act differently than he
is acting. The same with the other two (less serious) cases of visceral
reaction which I discussed: the individuals are not prejudiced because they
may not reasonably be expected to act differently from how they were acting.
> > That's the "pre" but the "judice" is about judgment. A visceral
> > reaction is one which bypasses judgment.
> Agreed again. That's a good description of prejudice in its current
> acception (excepting people with an axe to grind).
Not according to my sense of what prejudice means. See above.
> <snip - re non-nazi swastika>
> > And no one does. And the Jews I've discussed this with were well
> > aware of the symbols use by Indians. But were someone to turn a
> > corner and see one when he didn't expect it, such a reaction would be
> > reasonable.
>
> A visceral reaction reasonable? Hmmm. Expected, perhaps. I have it
> too, having lost most of my family in the Resistance. However, were I
> to disturb my neighbor because of an innocuous symbol I'd be a
> barbarian.
Who's disturbing their neighbor? Certainly not the hypothetical Jew I
mentioned. I take it you're speaking of the case of the teacher who
discussed "niggardly." But as I pointed out, exactly how one handles the
case of teaching children this word is a judgment call, just as are other
subjects, such as how one discusses race or sex. Letting the teacher say
whatever she wants whenever she wants to is just not going to happen, nor
should it.
> ...
> > >I prefer to reserve the word
> > >"prejudice" to demonstrably harmful forms of irrationality. Useful
forms of
> > >irrationality, such as appreciating the taste of an apple or admiring
the
> > >appearance of a potential sexual partner do not deserve, in my opinion,
to
> > >be called "prejudices."
>
> Irrelevant examples. The line gets drawn by the social consequences of
> one's irrational preferences. What do you say when your sexually
> motivated admiration of appearance interferes with, say, your hiring
> practices?
>
That's what personal restraint is for. And given that that has historically
been proven to have its limits, that's what laws against sexual harassment
are for, and that is why more and more companies now have personnel
departments. Similarly, how the teacher will be treated in the case in
question will be decided to a large part by policies currently in place. You
appear to fail to see that the teacher's decisions are themselves subject to
judgment, and properly so.
> > >The reaction to the swastika which I describe is
> > >entirely within the bounds of normal, useful--or at least potentially
> > >useful--irrationality. I would, of course, expect many non-Jewish
Westerners
> > >to react in the exact same manner.
>
> Useful my eye and foot. Here we have a teacher sacked because she
> properly used an English word in a perfectly appropriate context. Lots
> of other people lost jobs, freedom and life because of mob prejudice
> re words or other symbols. Useful.
>
Whether she "properly used an English word in a perfectly appropriate
context" is a question to be decided by society. Your opinion on the matter
is not obviously correct.
> > >You are asking too much of people if you expect them to be entirely
> > >rational
>
> I don't think many people expect them to. However, in a few civilized
> societies people are certainly expected to keep their irrationality
> from interfering with other peoples' rights. This kind of slippery
> casuistic has always been used to excuse the rape of language by
> propaganda.
We can argue against some forms of change in language, but change will come
about whether you or I wish it or not. Or lack of change: If I had my
druthers, the word "whom" would long ago have been banished from the
language. It has not, however, and not only that, but I feel compelled to
use it in certain circumstances. That's just the reality of our language and
society.
Nancy Anderson
Exactly. The words do look very similar, although the etymology is
totally different. Quite a lot of people were upset by it, as I
remember. Still, I imagine that words resembling the "N" word are much
more inflammatory.
Nancy Anderson
David Buttery
<snip>
> oaths based upon religious terms were once considered by English
> people to be extremely strong (as they currently are in Canadian
> French, or so I've read).
<snip>
The Welsh expression "Duw!" is considered quite a bit stronger than
the English translation ("God!"), and there are even some bilingual
people who will use the English word while speaking Welsh to avoid
offence.
Odysseus
>
> "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote on 07 Sep 2002:
>
> <snip>
> > oaths based upon religious terms were once considered by English
> > people to be extremely strong (as they currently are in Canadian
> > French, or so I've read).
> <snip>
>
> The Welsh expression "Duw!" is considered quite a bit stronger than
> the English translation ("God!"), and there are even some bilingual
> people who will use the English word while speaking Welsh to avoid
> offence.
>
'liturgical' French-Canadian oaths like _tabernac'_, _calice_ and _en 'ostie_?
--Odysseus
Howard G Walker
I once viewed and heard Lena Horne crooning on TV about, "My N...."
Once the camel's nose is under the tent flap, the result will be a 39-card
playing deck sans the suit of spades.
David Buttery
> Are there Welsh expressions corresponding to the more specifically
> 'liturgical' French-Canadian oaths like _tabernac'_, _calice_ and
> _en 'ostie_?
I don't know - I'm not a native Welsh speaker, nor fluent enough to get
away with using that kind of language!
mb
> It is natural for things, including symbols, associated with extremely
> harmful experiences to cause one to have a visceral reaction. I see no
> reason to confuse prejudice with this sort of natural reaction.
We are then at the main semantic split about "prejudice" - and have to
stop after accepting or rejecting the fact that there are two main
interpretations of prejudice, both solidly based in opposite world
views and political culture. Unlikely as we are to agree, any further
discussion will be OT and non-linguistic, leading to discussion of
propaganda from diametrally opposite standpoints.
Kurt Kurosawa
> That someone can lose her livelihood because of the prejudices of
> others runs contrary to anything I believe in.
You remember when that white city official from Washington DC (60% black
according to the 2000 census) resigned over the furor caused by his use of
'niggardly'? Same deal. It's not the prejudice of others that cost these
folks their jobs, it's their monumental stupidity, or maybe it's arrogance.
I mean, 'niggardly' is hardly an everyday word. You have to go out of your
way to use it. You have to be looking for an opportunity. Maybe you want to
show off. Maybe you want to push things. Maybe both at the same time, as
children do. Then follow the entirely forseeable consequences, and
invariably, the whining, which confirms everything. The only thing I would
object to is having my taxes go to paying these folks' unemployment
benefits.
Kurt Kurosawa
"Kurt Kurosawa" <kurt-k...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ON7f9.110898$082.4...@news1.east.cox.net...
>
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallace...@dse.nl> wrote in message
> news:al6sna$1npvrc$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > That someone can lose her livelihood because of the prejudices of
> > others runs contrary to anything I believe in.
>
> You remember when that white city official from Washington DC (60% black
> according to the 2000 census) resigned over the furor caused by his use of
> 'niggardly'?
Here's the story:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/27/word.flap/index.html
Now he says he'll use 'parsimonious' instead:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/04/dc.word.flap/index.html
Howard G Walker
"niggardly."
Kurt Kurosawa
> In the speech of the villain, "cheap bastard" is a suitable substitute for
> "niggardly."
Sure beats "parsimonious." Blech. Brings up a disgusting mental image of a
cross between a persimmon and a harmonica (probably eats as bad as it
plays).
"Bastard" has many cool pronunciations. I'm kind of partial to "bastid" and
"basset." I like Hoffman in "Straw Dogs" yelling "You bastard!" as if he
learned the word from the dictionary.
Tony Cooper
Why does he go out of his way to insult members of the clergy?
God-fearing people should demand he be fired.
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Kurt Kurosawa
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aljetc$1qqcrd$1...@ID-113505.news.dfncis.de...
> > Now he says he'll use 'parsimonious' instead:
>
> Why does he go out of his way to insult members of the clergy?
Especially moaning Parsees.
> God-fearing people should demand he be fired.
At the stake?
"I said a BUD Light!" --Joan of Arc
Actually a bassoon picker I know went to the site of the burnage with her
mom and they were both hit with such high-intensity ugly vibes they
virtually ran from the place. She said is positive "Miss Of Arc" did not die
in any state of happy religious detachment (recalling the painting on the
back of Leonard Cohen's album) but in inconceivable pain. Could the
scriptwriter have been so numb he didn't know what awaited her when he had
Bill and Ted take her back to her past?
Mark Wallace
'Niggardly' might not be a word I'd use every day, because I neither
know nor write about many niggardly people -- but nor is
'opthalmologist' a 'daily word', and it, too has a very specific
meaning that is not expressed so well by other words.
'Miserly'? Nah. Invokes Scrooge.
'Tight'? Nah. Too light.
'Stingy'? Nah. To childish.
'Closefisted'? Nah. Too informal.
Etc.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Dena Jo
> but nor is 'opthalmologist' a 'daily word'
Clearly not. Op*h*thalmologist.
--
Dena Jo
Mark Wallace
> Mark Wallace:
>
>> but nor is 'opthalmologist' a 'daily word'
>
> Clearly not. Op*h*thalmologist.
Well, at least I spelt 'niggardly' with an 'a'.
If my spellchecker is broken (and it appears to be), I'm in Deep
trouble!
--
Mark Wallace
_____________________________________________
What effect has the Euro really had on Europe?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/dutch/articles/rotterdamerung.htm
_____________________________________________
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
'Parsimonious' sounds to me like an insult to parsons, and should be banned
forthwith.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin
Kurt Kurosawa
> 'Niggardly' might not be a word I'd use every day, because I neither
> know nor write about many niggardly people -- but nor is
> 'opthalmologist' a 'daily word', and it, too has a very specific
> meaning that is not expressed so well by other words.
>
> 'Miserly'? Nah. Invokes Scrooge.
> 'Tight'? Nah. Too light.
> 'Stingy'? Nah. To childish.
> 'Closefisted'? Nah. Too informal.
> Etc.
Hey, if words are playthings, kewl, whatever. But if you depend on your
choice of words in public to keep your kids fed, it's just plain stupid to
deliberately pick wrong, particularly when you know the end result can
hardly be called communication. These public employees could not have helped
but know that their choice of words had nothing to do with improving
communication and everything to do with generating communication-killing
noise.
Mark Wallace
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallace...@dse.nl> wrote in message
> news:aljvnk$1quc9e$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
>
>> 'Niggardly' might not be a word I'd use every day, because I
>> neither know nor write about many niggardly people -- but nor is
>> 'opthalmologist' a 'daily word', and it, too has a very specific
>> meaning that is not expressed so well by other words.
>>
>> 'Miserly'? Nah. Invokes Scrooge.
>> 'Tight'? Nah. Too light.
>> 'Stingy'? Nah. To childish.
>> 'Closefisted'? Nah. Too informal.
>> Etc.
>
> Hey, if words are playthings, kewl, whatever. But if you depend
> on your choice of words in public to keep your kids fed,
Which I do.
> it's
> just plain stupid to deliberately pick wrong,
Which I don't. If 'niggardly' is called for, 'niggardly' is used.
> particularly when
> you know the end result can hardly be called communication.
Using a word to describe what it is meant to describe is hardly
showing a lack in communicaton.
> These
> public employees could not have helped but know that their choice
> of words had nothing to do with improving communication and
> everything to do with generating communication-killing noise.
You're absolutely right.
It was categorically proven in the 1930s (by a chap whose name I can
never remember) that the English language needs only 800 words.
All those other words in the dictionaries just inhibit precise
communication.
Kurt Kurosawa
> >
> Which I don't. If 'niggardly' is called for, 'niggardly' is used.
That's you. These cases involved a US city administrator and a US
grammar-school teacher.
> Using a word to describe what it is meant to describe is hardly
> showing a lack in communicaton.
Language is convention. Convention is about agreement, not right and wrong
(worse, rights and evils). If he wants to be effective, the speaker
recognizes his role in shaping what's received. If he wants to be
curmudgeonly, well OK.
> > These
> > public employees could not have helped but know that their choice
> > of words had nothing to do with improving communication and
> > everything to do with generating communication-killing noise.
>
> You're absolutely right.
> It was categorically proven in the 1930s (by a chap whose name I can
> never remember) that the English language needs only 800 words.
> All those other words in the dictionaries just inhibit precise
> communication.
*plonk*
Mark Wallace
> Language is convention. Convention is about agreement, not right
> and wrong (worse, rights and evils). If he wants to be effective,
> the speaker recognizes his role in shaping what's received. If he
> wants to be curmudgeonly, well OK.
Hoo, Boy!
I would really have enjoyed panning him over this statement!
david56
Bassoon picker? Burnage? Interesting.
I have mentioned before, I think, that I am an amateur bassoon picker (I
prefer "blower"). Perhaps you meant "faggott", although even "faggott
picker" is difficult to parse - it would mean somebody who collects
sticks for firewood. "Burnage" is an area of Manchester from where John
Thaw and the Gallagher brothers, amongst others, hail. It should
probably be "burning".
I've also visited the marketplace where Joan was burned. I don't
believe in "vibes" and I certainly didn't feel any there. I did like
the modern church though. I was immensely impressed by being able to
stand in the very room where Joan first met the Dauphin.
david56
>
> Kurt Kurosawa wrote:
> > "Mark Wallace" <mwallace...@dse.nl> wrote in message
> > news:aljvnk$1quc9e$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >> 'Niggardly' might not be a word I'd use every day, because I
> >> neither know nor write about many niggardly people -- but nor is
> >> 'opthalmologist' a 'daily word', and it, too has a very specific
> >> meaning that is not expressed so well by other words.
> >>
> >> 'Miserly'? Nah. Invokes Scrooge.
> >> 'Tight'? Nah. Too light.
> >> 'Stingy'? Nah. To childish.
> >> 'Closefisted'? Nah. Too informal.
> >> Etc.
> >
> > Hey, if words are playthings, kewl, whatever. But if you depend
> > on your choice of words in public to keep your kids fed,
>
> Which I do.
>
> > it's
> > just plain stupid to deliberately pick wrong,
>
> Which I don't. If 'niggardly' is called for, 'niggardly' is used.
I agree. I found myself saying "tractable" at a meeting yesterday - I
don't remember having ever used the word before. Words come to the
surface and thrust themselves into the surroundings without conscious
intention. It's very different if you are writing or delivering a
prepared text, although I wouldn't rule out "niggardly" on principle.
Mark Wallace
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>>
>> Kurt Kurosawa wrote:
>>> "Mark Wallace" <mwallace...@dse.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:aljvnk$1quc9e$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
>>>
>>>> 'Niggardly' might not be a word I'd use every day, because I
>>>> neither know nor write about many niggardly people -- but nor
>>>> is 'opthalmologist' a 'daily word', and it, too has a very
>>>> specific meaning that is not expressed so well by other words.
>>>>
>>>> 'Miserly'? Nah. Invokes Scrooge.
>>>> 'Tight'? Nah. Too light.
>>>> 'Stingy'? Nah. To childish.
>>>> 'Closefisted'? Nah. Too informal.
>>>> Etc.
>>>
>>> Hey, if words are playthings, kewl, whatever. But if you depend
>>> on your choice of words in public to keep your kids fed,
>>
>> Which I do.
>>
>>> it's
>>> just plain stupid to deliberately pick wrong,
>>
>> Which I don't. If 'niggardly' is called for, 'niggardly' is
>> used.
>
> I agree. I found myself saying "tractable" at a meeting
> yesterday - I don't remember having ever used the word before.
A quick search shows that I haven't used 'tractable' at all, in the
stuff I've kept copies of (but several 'intractables', which shows
that I'm a negative kind of guy).
That makes you one up on me.
> Words come to the surface and thrust themselves into the
> surroundings without conscious intention.
Absolutely. So much of the value of phrasing is based on
subconsciously-remembered data that 'following your nose' and using
the first thing that comes into your head is often the most
effective thing to do, especially if talking to people with similar
lifestyles & tastes to your own.
> It's very different if
> you are writing or delivering a prepared text, although I
> wouldn't rule out "niggardly" on principle.
It depends on the audience.
Personally, I think the teacher in question did the right thing. At
least a bunch of people now know what 'niggardly' means, so will be
able to use it.
Dr Robin Bignall
OK, so you've been niggardly with your tractables. Be more generous!
Incidently, I agree absolutely with your POV.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin
david56
>
> david56 wrote:
>
> > I agree. I found myself saying "tractable" at a meeting
> > yesterday - I don't remember having ever used the word before.
>
> A quick search shows that I haven't used 'tractable' at all, in the
> stuff I've kept copies of (but several 'intractables', which shows
> that I'm a negative kind of guy).
> That makes you one up on me.
You have used it now though.
I would not have said "tractable" in this instance if I'd had the time
to edit my words. I was speaking to my boss, a director of our company
and a lawyer by training, so I'm sure he understood. But about 10 out
of the 20 people in the room were not native English speakers, so I
would have chosen a more easily understood word if I'd had time to
consider.
Mark Wallace
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>>
>> david56 wrote:
>>
>>> I agree. I found myself saying "tractable" at a meeting
>>> yesterday - I don't remember having ever used the word before.
>>
>> A quick search shows that I haven't used 'tractable' at all, in
>> the stuff I've kept copies of (but several 'intractables', which
>> shows that I'm a negative kind of guy).
>> That makes you one up on me.
>
> You have used it now though.
>
> I would not have said "tractable" in this instance if I'd had the
> time to edit my words. I was speaking to my boss, a director of
> our company and a lawyer by training, so I'm sure he understood.
> But about 10 out of the 20 people in the room were not native
> English speakers, so I would have chosen a more easily understood
> word if I'd had time to consider.
Not if they were French, I hope.
david56
> david56 wrote:
>
>>Mark Wallace wrote:
>>
>>>david56 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I agree. I found myself saying "tractable" at a meeting
>>>>yesterday - I don't remember having ever used the word before.
>>>
>>>A quick search shows that I haven't used 'tractable' at all, in
>>>the stuff I've kept copies of (but several 'intractables', which
>>>shows that I'm a negative kind of guy).
>>>That makes you one up on me.
>>
>>You have used it now though.
>>
>>I would not have said "tractable" in this instance if I'd had the
>>time to edit my words. I was speaking to my boss, a director of
>>our company and a lawyer by training, so I'm sure he understood.
>>But about 10 out of the 20 people in the room were not native
>>English speakers, so I would have chosen a more easily understood
>>word if I'd had time to consider.
>
> Not if they were French, I hope.
Obviously not. I'd have spoken French.
NGonly
>From: "Raymond S. Wise" illinoi...@mninter.net
>Date: 9/4/02 3:47 PM Central Daylight Time
<snip>
>As I pointed out in my reply to the person who posted the original message,
>there is no evidence that the person who complained about the word was
>ignorant of its meaning.
<snip>
Actually, she was ignorant of its meaning, initially.
However, the real shame on her part is that she continued to pursue her goal of
having the teacher removed even AFTER the meaning and the origin of the word
had been explained to her.
I know this because I saw her on the Fox News Channel and she didn't care what
the word meant. She only cared how it sounded.
Now, if that is not ignorance, perhaps it is stupidity!
Either way, an injustice has been perpetrated and I would like to see it
corrected.
The school board has directed the superintendent to meet with the principal and
the teacher to bring this matter to a speedy conclusion. But, will it be an
equitable and just conclusion for the teacher?
NGO
This address is configured to reject direct e-mail replies.
Please address all replies to the appropriate newsgroup.
Raymond S. Wise
news:20020913000217...@mb-fi.aol.com...
>
> >From: "Raymond S. Wise" illinoi...@mninter.net
> >Date: 9/4/02 3:47 PM Central Daylight Time
>
> <snip>
>
> >As I pointed out in my reply to the person who posted the original
message,
> >there is no evidence that the person who complained about the word was
> >ignorant of its meaning.
>
> <snip>
>
> Actually, she was ignorant of its meaning, initially.
>
> However, the real shame on her part is that she continued to pursue her
goal of
> having the teacher removed even AFTER the meaning and the origin of the
word
> had been explained to her.
>
Well, if you've been reading the messages in this thread, you know that a
lot of people disagree strongly with you on this point, including me. Far
from being critical of the woman for continuing to pursue her goal after
learning the meaning and origin of the word, I understand why she would do
so. Now, at some point in their education, children should be exposed to the
word "niggardly," but when is a matter of judgment, and the class in
question was an elementary-school class, fourth grade.
Here is a similar case: The Polish word for a Pole is "Polak." A derogatory
term for a Pole in English is "Polack," with a pronunciation close to the
Polish word. It is essentially the same word. See the discussion of the word
at
http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/polack.htm
At some point, a student should be made aware of this fact. How about in
kindergarten? No, I don't think so. Well, first grade, then. No, I don't
think that's a good idea either. I couldn't say offhand *when* children
should be introduced to the facts about "Polack" and "Polak." It is, in
fact, a judgment call. A teacher that introduced the subject in first grade
could and most probably would be criticized, and rightly so.
Note that there is nothing inherently offensive in informing a child that
the Polish word for a Pole is "Polak." It is because of the association with
another, offensive--although related--word that the subject becomes
controversial.
> I know this because I saw her on the Fox News Channel and she didn't care
what
> the word meant. She only cared how it sounded.
>
> Now, if that is not ignorance, perhaps it is stupidity!
>
> Either way, an injustice has been perpetrated and I would like to see it
> corrected.
>
> The school board has directed the superintendent to meet with the
principal and
> the teacher to bring this matter to a speedy conclusion. But, will it be
an
> equitable and just conclusion for the teacher?
>
> NGO
>
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
NGonly
>Date: 9/13/02 1:55 AM Central Daylight Time
<snip>
>Well, if you've been reading the messages in this thread, you know that a
>lot of people disagree strongly with you on this point, including me. Far
>from being critical of the woman for continuing to pursue her goal after
>learning the meaning and origin of the word, I understand why she would do
>so.
Did you see her appearance on FNC? Have you seen her addressing this subject
elsewhere?
If not, I submit that you are in a poor position to judge, or evaluate, her
motivation in this case. I saw her. I heard her inflection. In my opinion, you
are giving her far too much credit.
> Now, at some point in their education, children should be exposed to the
>word "niggardly," but when is a matter of judgment, and the class in
>question was an elementary-school class, fourth grade.
>
Yes, I agree. However, I see nothing wrong with a 10 year-old being introduced
to this word. I doubt very seriously that they have avoided the word "nigger"
by that age and, in my opinion, they need to be introduced to "niggardly" so
they won't react as Ms. Walker did!
What you may not realize is that she thought the words were related when her
daughter first told her about it. She even quoted herself as saying something
to the effect of this: 'That word will not be used in my house'. She never
stated that her daughter was uncomfortable with the distinction between the two
words. My point is a simple one: Ms. Walker appears to have been uninformed
(ignorant) and, subsequently, to be a troublemaker. She should have been told
to butt out. The principal handled this poorly and I suspect the whole thing
could have been cleared up had someone taken the time to carefully explain the
situation to the child involved - provided there was any need to do so. I think
I could have.
I'd like to see a report on the attitudes of the students in Ms. Bell's class
regarding this situation. It would not surprise me to learn that all of the
other students "got it". Maybe even the Walker kid got it.
In addition, while I am on the subject, here is a commentary that was forwarded
to me on the farce that the word "nigger" has become:
--------------------
"It bothers me that blacks use 'nigger' for everything from a greeting to a
slur. And, none of them says anything about it or ever seems to experience any
negative effects from it. Far too many people in this country have been
hoodwinked by this 'call me a nigger and I will die' hoax. It is simply a
device to use to their advantage whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Anyone who is exposed to black people, on a regular basis, in a casual setting,
should understand that. The people who promote the hoax are either trying to
perpetuate it or they are ignorant of what really goes on in everyday life. The
big media types do not recognize (or refuse to do so) the obvious fact that the
'offense' blacks take to the word is selective because it depends on the
source. If it were such a dastardly and powerful word, that would not be the
case. Both 'nigger' and 'niggardly' are just words. They are not daggers, clubs
or missiles!"
-----------------------
Names are names. They are words. I don't bleed when I am "hit" by a word.
Neither does anyone else; even if they are ignorant of the meaning of the word.
The farce that has been propagated relative to the word "nigger" is the real
problem here. Had it not been (erroneously) elevated to the status of "causing
death", in the minds of some people, this issue, and many others, would never
arise.
<snip>
So, yes, we disagree on the motivation (and possibly the sincerity and the
intelligence) of the parent involved here. And, we also disagree on the
appropriateness of including "niggardly" in a fourth grade vocabulary session.
So be it.
But, it seems that the evidence is clear on one thing: A great many of our
fellow citizens have never been exposed to the word "niggardly" either - much
less to its meaning, origins or usage. Had Ms. Walker been exposed to it when
she was in the fourth grade, perhaps we would not be having this discussion!
See, I suspect that she flew off the handle before she knew the score. And,
once she was made aware of the differences in the two words, she kept it up to
save face. Whether I am right or wrong about this means very little. What is
important is that, because of the overreaction of a parent and a principal, a
child was transferred, a teacher was not only reprimanded, she was made to
apologize to each student and their parents and the school system has received
a tremendous amount of negative publicity and criticism from people who agree
with me.
I think it is both amusing and unfortunate that the two words sound so much
alike.
This isn't the first time the similarity has caused problems and it probably
won't be the last. Why? Because people like you, and possibly Ms. Walker, want
to debate the appropriate "exposure" age instead of having enough confidence in
the teacher and students to handle the issue on their own.
mb
> lot of people disagree strongly with you on this point, including me. Far
> from being critical of the woman for continuing to pursue her goal after
> learning the meaning and origin of the word, I understand why she would do
> so. Now, at some point in their education, children should be exposed to the
> word "niggardly," but when is a matter of judgment, and the class in
> question was an elementary-school class, fourth grade.
Something in that. When you look at the results of "education" in the
US of A, the general impression is that it steadfastly follows the
same principle, viz: "It's basically too early to expose kids to any
knowledge".
Kurt Kurosawa
"mb" <azy...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9cc8f152.0209...@posting.google.com...
>
> Something in that. When you look at the results of "education" in the
> US of A, the general impression is that it steadfastly follows the
> same principle, viz: "It's basically too early to expose kids to any
> knowledge".
Hey, they teach the kids all kinds of wonderful stuff! Middle school kids
nowadays know half a dozen ways to prevent pregnancy and a dozen ways to
recycle garbage. Of course, they don't know what WWII was, but ya can't have
everything!
Dena Jo
something that's already been said.
I think the brouhaha over the use of the word niggardly is silly. My
position -- an explanation should have been enough for the mother.
Unfortunately, it wasn't. Too bad, Mom.
Now having said that, I think people need to be sensitive to the fact that
niggardly is a word that will be misheard, misunderstood, and
misinterpreted. I know that when I speak, I take into consideration who my
audience is, and I choose words appropriate for that audience and that
setting. That's as it should be. Moreover, the purpose of language is to
communicate effectively. Why use a word that you know in advance is going
to cause a problem when there are equally good words that won't cause a
problem.
Ngonly quoted the following piece:
> The big media types do not recognize (or refuse to do so) the obvious
> fact that the 'offense' blacks take to the word is selective because it
> depends on the source.
No! Really?
Well, yeah. OF COURSE, it depends on the source. Nothing wrong with that.
> If it were such a dastardly and powerful word, that would not be the
> case.
Complete and utter bullshit.
--
Dena Jo
Alan Jones
> US of A, the general impression is that it steadfastly follows the
> same principle, viz: "It's basically too early to expose kids to any
> knowledge".
In English "prep. schools", preparing pupils age 7-13 for admission to what
used to be called "public" schools, many 8-year-old children would already
be learning Latin and French, with homework, tests and so on.
Alan Jones
mb
Don't worry, that is also going to disappear pretty soon: the habit of
thinking that all children are as retarded as their censors, oops..
"educators", is now being exported as part of the globalization
movement.
meirman
(mb) posted:
>"Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote in message
>> In any case, tolerance for words which bring up negative associations varies
>> from one society to another, and from one sub-group to another within a
>> society. You've heard, no doubt, about the town where one says "Heaven-o"
>> instead of "Hello." On a more serious note, language taboos which lead to
>> avoidance of certain usages have also occurred in Hebrew and in Japanese.
>
>Is there any other society today where this absurdity is at the level
>of the US of A, with its roosters and donkeys and he-cows? That
I've heard of a she-ass but never a he-cow!
>"heaven-o" is extremely serious. Look at the practical consequences.
>
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
meirman
(mb) posted:
>"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > Is there any other society today where this absurdity is at the level
>> > of the US of A, with its roosters and donkeys and he-cows? That
>> > "heaven-o" is extremely serious. Look at the practical consequences.
>> Muslim societies. We only fire people. They stone them to death.
>
>Concluding from hearsay - no stonings for similar-sounding words. At
>least linguistically speaking, the atmosphere there is far more
>relaxed.
You know that for a fact? It might just be a conclusion bases on the
absence of such stories, and that might be because there are so many
worse stories.
meirman
<bass.a...@ntlworld.com> posted:
>"Raymond S. Wise" wrote:
>>
>>
>> I can't agree with you about "the most strongly taboo word in English." That
>> would be "nigger," despite the fact that it is does have a neutral use among
>> some Black Americans.
>
>I would disagree with your disagreement, at least in the UK. One
>occasionally hears "nigger" on the radio in these parts, either from the
>likes of Chris Rock, from old recordings of Richard Prior, or from a
>journalist discussing the resignation of a lady after she mentioned the
>Agatha Christie novel "Ten Little Niggars". But they never say "cunt"
>on the radio, even when everybody knows what they mean. I've heard
>Jennie Murray on Womans Hour go to great lengths to make sure that her
>guests don't utter the word (WH is live).
Do you guys have 10 second delay?
Peter Duncanson
<mei...@invalid.com> wrote:
>In alt.english.usage on Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:36:36 +0100 david56
><bass.a...@ntlworld.com> posted:
>
>>"Raymond S. Wise" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't agree with you about "the most strongly taboo word in English." That
>>> would be "nigger," despite the fact that it is does have a neutral use among
>>> some Black Americans.
>>
>>I would disagree with your disagreement, at least in the UK. One
>>occasionally hears "nigger" on the radio in these parts, either from the
>>likes of Chris Rock, from old recordings of Richard Prior, or from a
>>journalist discussing the resignation of a lady after she mentioned the
>>Agatha Christie novel "Ten Little Niggars". But they never say "cunt"
>>on the radio, even when everybody knows what they mean. I've heard
>>Jennie Murray on Womans Hour go to great lengths to make sure that her
>>guests don't utter the word (WH is live).
>
>Do you guys have 10 second delay?
>
I can't give an authoritative answer to that.
[ So why am I posting? ;-) ]
Based on casual observation I would say that sometimes there
obviously is a delay, other times there clearly is not.
As for the rest, the majority, I don't know what the standard
practice is - if there is one.
--
Peter D.
UK
(posting from a.e.u)
david56
> In alt.english.usage on Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:36:36 +0100 david56
> <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> posted:
>
>
>>"Raymond S. Wise" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I can't agree with you about "the most strongly taboo word in English." That
>>>would be "nigger," despite the fact that it is does have a neutral use among
>>>some Black Americans.
>>
>>I would disagree with your disagreement, at least in the UK. One
>>occasionally hears "nigger" on the radio in these parts, either from the
>>likes of Chris Rock, from old recordings of Richard Prior, or from a
>>journalist discussing the resignation of a lady after she mentioned the
>>Agatha Christie novel "Ten Little Niggars". But they never say "cunt"
>>on the radio, even when everybody knows what they mean. I've heard
>>Jennie Murray on Womans Hour go to great lengths to make sure that her
>>guests don't utter the word (WH is live).
>
>
> Do you guys have 10 second delay?
I believe not. Phone in programmes often suffer from
feedback/howl-around which can only happen with live broadcasts.
David Buttery
> Do you guys have 10 second delay?
Sometimes. I know that Talk Radio, when they first started and were
trying (not very successfully) to project a "shock jock" image, had
an eight-second delay. I don't know whether the delay is still in
operation, as I no longer listen to the station, but I believe that
it is.
As far as other live broadcasts go: sporting events and concerts are
often simultaneous broadcasts with many people turning the TV sound
off and listening to the radio commentary/music, so they *have* to be
live (AFAIK, TV almost never has a delay over here). And I've heard
enough libellous comments on BBC radio phone-ins to convince me that
the Corporation very rarely, if ever, have a delay.
--
The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard
(including the Kinlet Park circuit - currently in beta)
Idiotic deep-linking restrictions: http://www.dontlink.com
Dr Robin Bignall
<gplscrapya...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote on 15 Sep 2002:
>
>> Do you guys have 10 second delay?
>
>Sometimes. I know that Talk Radio, when they first started and were
>trying (not very successfully) to project a "shock jock" image, had
>an eight-second delay. I don't know whether the delay is still in
>operation, as I no longer listen to the station, but I believe that
>it is.
>
>As far as other live broadcasts go: sporting events and concerts are
>often simultaneous broadcasts with many people turning the TV sound
>off and listening to the radio commentary/music, so they *have* to be
>live (AFAIK, TV almost never has a delay over here). And I've heard
>enough libellous comments on BBC radio phone-ins to convince me that
>the Corporation very rarely, if ever, have a delay.
I think you're right, and that the BBC does not have a delay even on its
phone-ins. On 'Any Answers' one can very occasionally hear the radio in the
background keeping pace with the speaker on the phone. But quite a few
apparently 'live' broadcast programmes which sound bang up to the minute
may have been recorded earlier in the same day.
The London Broadcasting Company (LBC) does have a 10 second delay on its
phone-ins. They ask callers to turn their radios off so that one doesn't
hear the two signals simultaneously.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin
david56
> meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote on 15 Sep 2002:
>
>
>>Do you guys have 10 second delay?
> Sometimes. I know that Talk Radio, when they first started and were
> trying (not very successfully) to project a "shock jock" image, had
> an eight-second delay. I don't know whether the delay is still in
> operation, as I no longer listen to the station, but I believe that
> it is.
>
> As far as other live broadcasts go: sporting events and concerts are
> often simultaneous broadcasts with many people turning the TV sound
> off and listening to the radio commentary/music, so they *have* to be
> live (AFAIK, TV almost never has a delay over here). And I've heard
> enough libellous comments on BBC radio phone-ins to convince me that
> the Corporation very rarely, if ever, have a delay.
Of course if you listen to the radio or watch the TV by digital cable or
satellite, there's a delay of about a second from the encoding and
decoding. Which makes life a little bizarre if you can hear two
different sources at the same time, from the study and living room or
kitchen. And the time signal is wrong.
MM
> meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote on 15 Sep 2002:
>
>> Do you guys have 10 second delay?
>
> Sometimes. I know that Talk Radio, when they first started and were
> trying (not very successfully) to project a "shock jock" image, had
> an eight-second delay. I don't know whether the delay is still in
> operation, as I no longer listen to the station, but I believe that
> it is.
>
> As far as other live broadcasts go: sporting events and concerts are
> often simultaneous broadcasts with many people turning the TV sound
> off and listening to the radio commentary/music, so they *have* to be
> live (AFAIK, TV almost never has a delay over here). And I've heard
> enough libellous comments on BBC radio phone-ins to convince me that
> the Corporation very rarely, if ever, have a delay.
gave them ample time to turn the sound off or switch to another camera
when they deemed it necessary. On the few occasions that I had the
misfortune to watch it, I seemed to spend most of the time looking at a
silent shot of the chicken coop. Riveting stuff!
MM
MM
> David Buttery wrote:
>> meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote on 15 Sep 2002:
>>
>>>Do you guys have 10 second delay?
>
>> Sometimes. I know that Talk Radio, when they first started and were
>> trying (not very successfully) to project a "shock jock" image, had
>> an eight-second delay. I don't know whether the delay is still in
>> operation, as I no longer listen to the station, but I believe that
>> it is.
>>
>> As far as other live broadcasts go: sporting events and concerts are
>> often simultaneous broadcasts with many people turning the TV sound
>> off and listening to the radio commentary/music, so they *have* to be
>> live (AFAIK, TV almost never has a delay over here). And I've heard
>> enough libellous comments on BBC radio phone-ins to convince me that
>> the Corporation very rarely, if ever, have a delay.
>
> Of course if you listen to the radio or watch the TV by digital cable or
> satellite, there's a delay of about a second from the encoding and
> decoding. Which makes life a little bizarre if you can hear two
> different sources at the same time, from the study and living room or
> kitchen. And the time signal is wrong.
It's also quite strange if you can't hear the other source(s) but you
can hear the viewers' reactions to it. During the World Cup
(football/soccer), for example, you could hear the cheers down the
street whenever England scored - but they would start at slightly
different times. Of course, part of this difference was probably down to
the relative effects of alcohol on the viewers' reaction time. ;-)
MM
David Buttery
> The "live" broadcasts of Big Brother had a 15min delay (I think).
> This gave them ample time to turn the sound off or switch to
> another camera when they deemed it necessary. On the few occasions
> that I had the misfortune to watch it, I seemed to spend most of
> the time looking at a silent shot of the chicken coop. Riveting
> stuff!
Which of course is the problem with such shows. As everyone knows,
the average family discussion contains many comments which would
cause instant and serious legal action to be taken if broadcast So
"reality TV" is never actually that.
Raymond S. Wise
interested in a book I have read and
recommend which deals with the phenomenon of disadvantaged groups which in
the past would have generally been ignored when they complained about an
offensive usage used in the speech of the majority, but who have gained
respect in the last few years and whose concerns are now being listened to:
linguist Robin Tolmach Lakoff's *The Language War,* Berkeley: University of
California Press, (C) 2000.
meirman
<gplscrapya...@yahoo.co.uk> posted:
>meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote on 15 Sep 2002:
>
>> Do you guys have 10 second delay?
>
>Sometimes. I know that Talk Radio, when they first started and were
>trying (not very successfully) to project a "shock jock" image, had
>an eight-second delay. I don't know whether the delay is still in
>operation, as I no longer listen to the station, but I believe that
>it is.
>
>As far as other live broadcasts go: sporting events and concerts are
>often simultaneous broadcasts with many people turning the TV sound
>off and listening to the radio commentary/music, so they *have* to be
Right. That don't use delays here for that either, although on some
shows I have heard a half-second delay between a radio and a tv
station or between 2 tv station. That's not intentional I'm sure.
>live (AFAIK, TV almost never has a delay over here). And I've heard
Another thing about c-span is that sometimes the radio station
simulcasts what the tv network cablecasts. They don't often say, and I
don't care, when they are simulcasting, so I don't know if every time
the radui station has a delay, they are NOT simulcasting. If I ever
get cable again, maybe I'll learn.
C-Span radio is only available around Washintgton DC. I get it well
on 2 radios and the car radio.
>enough libellous comments on BBC radio phone-ins to convince me that
>the Corporation very rarely, if ever, have a delay.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
meirman
<bass.a...@ntlworld.com> posted:
>meirman wrote:
>> In alt.english.usage on Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:36:36 +0100 david56
>> <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> posted:
>>
>>
>>>"Raymond S. Wise" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I can't agree with you about "the most strongly taboo word in English." That
>>>>would be "nigger," despite the fact that it is does have a neutral use among
>>>>some Black Americans.
>>>
>>>I would disagree with your disagreement, at least in the UK. One
>>>occasionally hears "nigger" on the radio in these parts, either from the
>>>likes of Chris Rock, from old recordings of Richard Prior, or from a
>>>journalist discussing the resignation of a lady after she mentioned the
>>>Agatha Christie novel "Ten Little Niggars". But they never say "cunt"
>>>on the radio, even when everybody knows what they mean. I've heard
>>>Jennie Murray on Womans Hour go to great lengths to make sure that her
>>>guests don't utter the word (WH is live).
>>
>>
>> Do you guys have 10 second delay?
>
>I believe not. Phone in programmes often suffer from
>feedback/howl-around which can only happen with live broadcasts.
Yes,
Every call-in station has it available in the US I think but they
don't always use it. Strangely, the local stations, at least in
Baltimore will hang up on a caller who doesn't turn his radio down
very quickly, but C-span, which has call-in for 1 to 3 hours out of
every morning, 6-9, and presumably has a smarter class of callers, is
the most patient and waits the longest while they try to figure out
what to do.
Sometime, you can hear them switch from no delay to 10 (or whatever)
second delay. Now they have sound lengthening and compression, so
that they can go from no delay to delay by strettttching out the
words, so that 20 seconds take 30 seconds to broadcase, and the
opposite too, so that 30 seconds get stuffed into 20. It's wierd.