Euphemisms and Usage types
Jeff and Peg Shrum
What usage type would you all recommend for tagging euphemisms? I have several euphemisms relating to birth and death that I am editing now. One is “ovita” which has a primary sense of “to hide”, and a figurative sense of “to bury a loved one”. I have taken the second sense as being figurative, but would also like to indicate that it is a euphemism. My best guess at which usage type to use is “formal” since a euphemism is a form of polite speech. Would a usage type of “polite” or “euphemism” be something worth considering?
The issue of borrowing words has come up with this term since many prefer to use another word for “bury” --/ogohola/. I have added a comparison cross reference between these two words, but the latter /ovita/ is really froma neighboring language. It is widely used but many know it is not originally Takwane. This fact came up on a recent trip to do field testing. It is becoming more and more important that I document the borrowing that has occurred in the languages of western Zambezia. As Takwane materials are becoming used more widely.
While I am asking about usage types, what is the difference between “archaic” and “obsolete”? We have a term for “yoke” that the older people know but the young people do not know. There is not a modern replacement for this word so I take this word for “yoke” to be archaic. Would you all agree with that?
Jeff Shrum
Beth
> What usage type would you all recommend for tagging euphemisms?
The options that start out in the Usages list are from LinguaLinks, I
think, but they are not a hard and fast list. You are welcome to add
to/delete from/edit that list in whatever way makes it useful for
your project.
Note that the Usages field in FLEx is a "range set" as in
LinguaLinks. One of the things I do when I import SFM files is I
check whether the \ue field is a range set, or a freeform field. In
MDF, more typically people have used \ue as a freeform field. In
this case, I create a new custom field that I call "Usage Notes", and
I import \ue into that, rather than into Usages, because otherwise
the Usages list gets populated with all sorts of one-off comments--it
becomes a mess.
-Beth
Ronald Moe
Jeff Shrum wrote:
“what is the difference between “archaic” and “obsolete”?”
Here is an old email that I wrote several years ago to the LexicographyList.
Ron Moe
@@@@@
The American Heritage Dictionary gives the following in their "Guide to the
Dictionary":
Obsolete. A term labeled 'Obsolete' is no longer used except in quotation or
intentional archaism....
Archaic. The label 'Archaic' is applied to words that once were common but
are currently rare and are readily identifiable as belonging to a style of
language no longer in general use....
I don't believe most of us who work on minority language dictionaries will
need a temporal label that involves a date such as 1755. For most of us the
only relevant date is the birth of the oldest living speaker of the
language. Any word that a speaker today does not know can be labeled
'obsolete' and any word still known but falling out of use can be labeled
'archaic'. If we want to spell out the usage, we could say 'no longer used
or understood by speakers living today' or 'no longer used by younger
speakers but still understood by older speakers'. But if we want short
standardized labels, then I would propose the following, which I have just
drafted as part of the documentation package for the new FieldWorks program
being developed by SIL:
Usage Labels: Obsolete and Archaic
Words change over time. Old words fall out of use and new words are coined.
Words change in their pronunciation and meaning. This process is steady over
time, so that today some words that our ancestors used are no longer used or
understood. Other words are used by old people, but not by younger people.
To indicate these two types of words in the dictionary we use the terms
'obsolete' and 'archaic'.
Obsolete
Use the term 'obsolete' for those words that are no longer used or
understood by people alive today. We might find an obsolete word in an old
book, but no one would use an obsolete word today. A word labeled 'obsolete'
would not be understood by people today except a historian of the language.
For instance the King James Version of the Bible, translated in 1611, used
the word 'knop'. No one today uses this word and no one but a historian
would know that it meant 'a decorative knob'. Some other examples of
obsolete words (and their current equivalents) are 'bruit' (rumor), 'clout'
(patch), 'trow' (think), 'wen' (sore).
If a word has more than one sense, one sense might be obsolete even though
the other sense is still used today. So the term 'obsolete' can be applied
either to an entire entry or just to a sense.
Archaic
Use the term 'archaic' for those words that were used by old people but are
not used by young people. For instance the word 'wireless' used to be used
instead of the word 'radio', but most people today would use 'radio'. Many
people still know what the word 'wireless' means, even though they don't use
it. Since there are still people alive today who used the word 'wireless'
when they were young and since the word is still understood, we label it
'archaic' instead of 'obsolete'. Some other examples of archaic words (and
their current equivalents) are 'thou' (you), 'compass about' (encircle),
'looking glass' (mirror), 'thrice' (three times). Just as with the term
'obsolete', the term 'archaic' can apply either to an entire entry or just
to a single sense.
Ronald Moe
Jeff Shrum wrote:
“What usage type would you all recommend for tagging euphemisms?”
I don’t believe anyone answered this. I think ‘euphemism’ is the correct label. I belongs with the set ‘offensive’, ‘obscene’, and ‘taboo’ to describe lexemes that are either offensive in some way or, in the case of a euphemism, a deliberate way to avoid an offensive lexeme. There are quite a few parameters of usage that need to be described in a dictionary. Here is the relevant paragraph on this parameter from my new and revised “Intro to Lexicography”:
Propriety. Some lexemes may be considered improper. Many languages develop propriety restrictions on lexemes related to various aspects of death, birth, sex, defecation, and religion. Some languages have taboo restrictions on what lexemes can be spoken in certain situations. If a lexeme is offensive, it can be labeled 'offensive'. If a lexeme is considered very offensive, it can be labeled 'obscene'. If a lexeme cannot be spoken, it can be labeled 'taboo'. Propriety restriction may be limited to certain contexts or possibly all contexts. Presumably an improper or taboo lexeme is used in some contexts by some people or can be communicated in some way. Otherwise it would be unknown. Euphemisms are created in order to avoid using offensive lexemes. In order to fully describe the usage restrictions on improper lexemes, it may be necessary to describe the situations in which the lexeme can and cannot be used, and what the consequences would be if someone used it in the wrong way.
Ron Moe
From: flex...@googlegroups.com [mailto:flex...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff and Peg Shrum
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 5:10
AM
To: flex...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [FLEx] Euphemisms and
Usage types
What usage type would you all recommend for tagging euphemisms? I have several euphemisms relating to birth and death that I am editing now. One is “ovita” which has a primary sense of “to hide”, and a figurative sense of “to bury a loved one”. I have taken the second sense as being figurative, but would also like to indicate that it is a euphemism. My best guess at which usage type to use is “formal” since a euphemism is a form of polite speech. Would a usage type of “polite” or “euphemism” be something worth considering?
Jeff and Peg Shrum
Thank you for the explanations of obsolete and archaic.
Jeff Shrum