Liberal Arts Major
....except for Health.....but that's gay shit anyway
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "No" "WTF?" "Dumbass" "No" "You're a moron" and "No" after this post are assumed. This relieves you of the duty to say them...
Special
~~~
No, I don't own the Flux.
Editor
Just FYI.
---
Kenri: Urza Planeswalker?!
"In hindsight, perhaps the Kill Rubric wasn't such a good idea..."
Liberal Arts Major
Anyway, E/M was fucking easy - 5 and Mech...ehh...kinda borderline but probably a 5.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "No" "WTF?" "Dumbass" "No" "You're a moron" and "No" after this post are assumed. This relieves you of the duty to say them...
Special
And health is a worthless subject where the teacher tries to tell me we breathe in CO2.
~~~
No, I don't own the Flux.
DSB Moderator
Do our bodies actually use it? No.
---
Mega Sonic
Back at TFN?!
Liberal Arts Major
I shall explode in a matter of moments/months!
Meanwhile, I didn't have any AP tests, in exchange for actually having school now. Not that it matters; all my classes are easy, except for Math Analysis, which is only kind of easy.
___
~ Silvas ~
Buddha promised me Nirvana and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
"Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." ~ Oscar Wilde
Editor
The Earth was once perceived as flat.
Doesn't change the fact that it isn't.
---
Kenri: Urza Planeswalker?!
"In hindsight, perhaps the Kill Rubric wasn't such a good idea..."
~~
Burgess [Z?] ...pull the trigger.
I smell like smoke because I have walked through fire.
Editor
---
Kenri: Urza Planeswalker?!
"In hindsight, perhaps the Kill Rubric wasn't such a good idea..."
Liberal Arts Major
Although I'm on the judgmental side. Har.
___
~ Silvas ~
Buddha promised me Nirvana and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
"Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." ~ Oscar Wilde
Legend
That said, I can't agree with Kenri. Only because the few times I agreed with him in MBA bad things happened, and I fear if I do it again I'll get blamed for the summoning of a demon.
Again.
.......That and I think my first post should not agree with Kenri, but my dumb ass couldn't find any type of introduction board. Because I'm full of suck and stupid. >_>
Legend
Confound it.
Liberal Arts Major
Editor
Wait, I'm bi, that's like, half gay.
So I'm just a moron, not a fucking moron.
Or maybe this entire thing is idiotic and gay DOESN'T mean "fucking moron"?
Let's go to dictionary.com to find out.
gay ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g)
adj. gayer, gayest
1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
4. Given to social pleasures.
5. Dissolute; licentious.
n.
1. A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex.
2. A man whose sexual orientation is to men: an alliance of gays and lesbians.
Huh, guess I was right. No definition even comes close to "fucking moron".
As long as we're bastardizing the English language, I'm gonna start assigning incorrent definitions to words and using them.
Tiger, true face knuckle slot coin jiggle, smash costume mansion boat.
---
Kenri
"I am the law, and I find you guilty!" -The Judge (Batman: The Animated Series)
Liberal Arts Major
I thought only suspensions did that.
Well, sorry about that Tiger.
Well, I'm sorry for the user level reset, not the moderation. That was fair.
---
xp1337: Your former local puppet admin.
"This is the light of my soul, a sacred territory upon which no one may intrude." - Kaworu, NGE.
Liberal Arts Major
I was talking about what I mean when I use the word 'gay' and for some reason, I overuse it a lot. Sorry if that offended you Kenri cuz I didn't know you were bi, so that wasn't meant to be a personal attack.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "No" "WTF?" "Dumbass" "No" "You're a moron" and "No" after this post are assumed. This relieves you of the duty to say them...
Editor
I don't offend easily, and words like "gay" and "fag" kinda bounce off me anyway. Going to a public school has that effect.
---
Kenri: I'm all about the happy little trees
"I am the law, and I find you guilty!" ~The Judge (Batman: The Animated Series)
Special
*Gets out "fag" gun and shoots "gay" into Ken.*
*It has no effect.*
FUCK
~~~
No, I don't own the Flux.
Liberal Arts Major
Not Tiger. He went to Level 19.
Likewise, restoring from a suspension puts you at Level 40... like Teli.
---
xp1337: Your former local puppet admin.
"This is the light of my soul, a sacred territory upon which no one may intrude." - Kaworu, NGE.
Special
~~~
No, I don't own the Flux.
Liberal Arts Major
LINGUISTICS 101: ELEMENTARY SEMANTICS
The meaning of a word reflects the meaning intended by the speaker. So, if I call you a higglesquat, this means you're a fuckhead, which, by the way, isn't a very nice word. On the other hand, understanding can only be achieved if the listener knows what "higglesquat" means.
When a society uses a certain word with frequently the same intended meaning, that meaning will be transferred and eventually those specific sounds will enter the society's vocabulary with that specific meaning. (For instance, the word "d'oh" is now a more or less universally recognized word.)
Enter dictionary's. A lexicologist's job is to chronicle a) strings of phonemes (sounds) and b) the understood meaning of these sounds in all of society, or sometimes just a part of society. Some languages come with their very own academies (L'Academie Francaise), which pretend to regulate the words in a language - but these are silly and very pointless. Language is not bound by dictionaries.
So when Pavel calls something /ge(^j)/ and a pretty large segment of the population understands that as "really damn stupid", the meaning of the sounds /ge(^j)/ in that context becomes "really damn stupid", no matter what any dictionary says. (Likewise, when I call Pavel a /hIg@lsqwat/, well, he knows he ain't gettin' any.) And, when the public calls somebody who is homosexual /ge(^j)/, then it is generally understood that said person is really homosexual, not just really damn stupid. The words are homophones/homographs, but they're not synonyms. In fact, the only thing they share is etymology.
(To give you a more acceptable example, think of the verb "suck" [= /s(/\)k/]. Originally, /s(/\)k/ only described the action of sucking, like a straw or something. However, with its association with fellatio, phrases like /ju s(/\)k kak/ emerged as insults. Society caught hold of this nifty construction, and linguistic progression - in language, the more something is used, the simpler it becomes - eventually elided the /kak/ and just implied it. The new generation eventually picked up the derogatory phrase /ju s(/\)k/ without even thinking about the /kak/ part - that was only known to the previous, originating generation - and frequent use caused us teenagers to assign the semantic value of [+displeasure] to the word. Thus, despite etymology, when one of us says "you suck", we don't mean you engage in illicit homosexual sex. We just mean we don't particularly like you at the moment. A similar process, originally motivated by bigotry, resulted in Pavel's description of /ge(^j)/.)
In closing, if you don't like Pavel calling things gay, then don't say anything sucks, and, on second thought, don't say anything is sinister, either. Who knows how many lefty-hating religious zealots contributed to THAT derivation.
___
~ Silvas ~
Buddha promised me Nirvana and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
"Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." ~ Oscar Wilde
Editor
I read that as "The words are used by homophobes", which would actually be a lot more correct.
The problem with your long-winded definition is that dictionaries don't agree with you. They offer several definitions for "gay" that no one uses, but not the one we're arguing about. On the other hand, the definition for sinister is 1-3: involving bad stuff, 4: involving left sides, and 5: involving a shield AND left sides.
How about suck? Many, many defintions listed, but there is one, and I quote, "Vulgar Slang. To be disgustingly disagreeable or offensive."
There is no such "Vulgar Slang" in the entry for "gay". When there is, you'll have a leg to stand on. As of now, you're saying "society preceives that X is true, therefore X must, in fact, be true", which I'm sure is some kind of fallacy.
---
Kenri: I'm all about the happy little trees
"I am the law, and I find you guilty!" ~The Judge (Batman: The Animated Series)
Liberal Arts Major
The point was that dictionaries don't HAVE to agree with me, as long as society does. Besides, dictionaries of slang do carry the questioned definition of gay, as ns has already pointed out.
Sinister, by the way, comes from the Latin word for "left" (now sinistra in Italian). The "involving bad stuff" definition is rooted in superstitions involving the left-handed and Satan from way, way back.
How about suck? Many, many defintions listed, but there is one, and I quote, "Vulgar Slang. To be disgustingly disagreeable or offensive."
We must ask ourselves: how long was suck in popular use before a dictionary chronicled it? Years! The first problem is that suck began as an entire phrase; lexicologists interpreted the phrase "you suck" as simply a shorter version of some more offensive sentence and discarded it. It was only until nobody ever used the other part that someone finally noticed the new definition for suck. This usage of "gay" is only three to five years old; we'll have to wait for someone to catch on.
Unless you would like to argue that lexicographers are the people who come up with words and then force them on us, I think you should drop this.
There is no such "Vulgar Slang" in the entry for "gay". When there is, you'll have a leg to stand on.
Not in the American Heritage Dictionary.
Try this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gay
When looking for slang, it's often best to look for it in a dictionary of slang. Brother.
As of now, you're saying "society preceives that X is true, therefore X must, in fact, be true", which I'm sure is some kind of fallacy.
No, I'm saying that "society understands that X means Y, so X must really mean Y", which, if you're wondering, is one of the golden rules of linguistics. Linguistics. This maxim doesn't exactly apply to everything, but it damn well applies to linguistics.
I mean, if it didn't apply, who would come up with what words mean? God? I don't see Jesus writing any dictionaries.
___
~ Silvas ~
Buddha promised me Nirvana and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
"Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." ~ Oscar Wilde
Editor
And when they do, then I'll drop my argument.
Unless it's "vulgar slang", in which case I'll still interpret "gay" as a more reliable definition, such as "joyous".
When looking for slang, it's often best to look for it in a dictionary of slang. Brother.
Urban Dictionary thinks that "strawberry" is sexual and "lace" means "to add ecstacy to marijuana". No thanks, I'll trust sources from people who aren't idiots.
And I'm not arguing slang, I'm arguing real defintions. I'm not a semi-intelligent parasitic ape of a human; I try to avoid slang.
"society understands that X means Y, so X must really mean Y"
Society used to understand that the world was flat.
So the world must actually be flat.
...lol wate i mess up
Even if society says "gay" means "bad", that doesn't make it true. 99.999999% of the world could think that "gay" meant "bad". They'd still be wrong.
---
Kenri: I'm all about the happy little trees
"I am the law, and I find you guilty!" ~The Judge (Batman: The Animated Series)
Message last edited by Kenri of the Yuri on 5/19/2006 at 02:22:45 AM
Liberal Arts Major
I'm not going to wait THAT long.
Urban Dictionary thinks that "strawberry" is sexual and "lace" means "to add ecstacy to marijuana". No thanks, I'll trust sources from people who aren't idiots.
Well, if those entries remain, it means some part of the international population interprets those words in that fashion. Hence, when they use those words, that's what they mean.
So, they're idiots because the sounds they use don't jibe with the sounds you use? In that case, damn idiot Hindus!
Or are they idiots because they're not smart enough to choose the "right" sounds and put them in the order you would like them to be in?
Here's a little tidbit. When linguists analyze language, they use either something like the Oxford English Dictionary's extensive corpus of word history, or they analyze their own corpus of conversations or writing recorded directly from society. (Google is nifty for this.) They don't design the language as they want it to be; they follow the language as it is used.
And I'm not arguing slang, I'm arguing real defintions. I'm not a semi-intelligent parasitic ape of a human; I try to avoid slang.
There's a difference between weird, mutative slang like "foshizzle" and common slang like "gay" and "sucks": namely, they're common. The most common slang words are the English of tomorrow. Decrying them as "bastardizations" is a form of linguistic elitism, not intelligence.
That said, any widely-understood definition of a word becomes a "real" definition. Otherwise, there'd be no way for a language to evolve, and we'd be speaking Eald Englisc and Latina.
Even if society says "gay" means "bad", that doesn't make it true. 99.999999% of the world could think that "gay" meant "bad". They'd still be wrong.
I think you're a bit confused. If the Aztecs had a word that sounded like /ge(^j)/ and meant "bad", are you saying they got the wrong definition?
If two words sound alike, they don't actually have anything to do with each other. Think of it like this:
Word One: Gay
Homosexual
Word Two: Gay
Really damn stupid
Word Three: Gay
Happy
If society tells you that number one is a bad thing, then society might be wrong. But if society tells you that number two is negative and you think they're wrong, then, well, you should go into special education.
(There are also morphological distinctions. Namely, the gay that means homosexual is "nouned" as gayness, the gay that means really damn stupid is never "nouned", and the gay that means happy is "nouned" as gayity. They're entirely different words.)
___
~ Silvas ~
Buddha promised me Nirvana and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
"Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." ~ Oscar Wilde
Editor
Some part of the international population thinks the moon landing never happened.
So, they're idiots because the sounds they use don't jibe with the sounds you use? In that case, damn idiot Hindus!
Or are they idiots because they're not smart enough to choose the "right" sounds and put them in the order you would like them to be in?
5 minutes at Urban Dictionary will tell you that 90% of its contributors couldn't pass the 6th grade.
Here's a little tidbit. When linguists analyze language, they use either something like the Oxford English Dictionary's extensive corpus of word history, or they analyze their own corpus of conversations or writing recorded directly from society. (Google is nifty for this.) They don't design the language as they want it to be; they follow the language as it is used.
I imagine that logic must also go into the equation too, though. If a bunch of people start using the word "good" to mean "bad", I really doubt it'll ever be added as an alternate definition to a reputable dictionary. I could be wrong, though.
There's a difference between weird, mutative slang like "foshizzle" and common slang like "gay" and "sucks": namely, they're common. The most common slang words are the English of tomorrow. Decrying them as "bastardizations" is a form of linguistic elitism, not intelligence.
Elitism shows intelligence in many cases, even if the "owner" of that intelligence is a bastard. In this case, I'd rather be an elitist than a moron.
For the record, "foshizzle" is getting pretty common, and at least it isn't offensive. I'd sooner see "foshizzle" added to the dictionary than this particular definition for "gay".
That said, any widely-understood definition of a word becomes a "real" definition. Otherwise, there'd be no way for a language to evolve, and we'd be speaking Eald Englisc and Latina.
The problem here, once again, is that this "widely-understood" definition is a horribly offensive twist on a previously innocent word - which should NOT be encouraged. Likewise, if anyone tried to create a definition for the word "black", that was "a lazy, ignorant person", I doubt any reputable dictionaries would accept that, no matter how "widely-understood" it was.
If two words sound alike, they don't actually have anything to do with each other.
Wrong-o! The 'original' defintions of "gay" were mainly "gleeful/joyous/happy/etc" and "dissolute". Given the nature of homosexual stereotypes, it's easy to make the leap here. Then the less intellig...err... open minded members of society believed being homosexual was a bad thing, hence "gay" became a term that meant "bad".
If society tells you that number one is a bad thing, then society might be wrong. But if society tells you that number two is negative and you think they're wrong, then, well, you should go into special education.
But this is assuming number 2 is an actual definition, which it isn't. At least, yet. Their only choices are 1 and 3.
(There are also morphological distinctions. Namely, the gay that means homosexual is "nouned" as gayness, the gay that means really damn stupid is never "nouned", and the gay that means happy is "nouned" as gayity. They're entirely different words.)
Wrong-o. Again. At least according to dictionary.com, -ity is not a suffix for "gay".
---
Kenri: I'm all about the happy little trees
"I am the law, and I find you guilty!" ~The Judge (Batman: The Animated Series)
Liberal Arts Major
When did world history become a branch of semantics?
5 minutes at Urban Dictionary will tell you that 90% of its contributors couldn't pass the 6th grade.
Five minutes at Urban Dictionary will also tell you that 90% of its contributors speak some form of English. That's good enough for me.
I imagine that logic must also go into the equation too, though. If a bunch of people start using the word "good" to mean "bad", I really doubt it'll ever be added as an alternate definition to a reputable dictionary. I could be wrong, though.
You're wrong. The only reason "good" means what it means now is that that's the intended meaning, and most English-speaking people understand it as such. If that were to suddenly change, that change would be recorded. The sounds themselves are meaningless; it's the meaning people ascribe to them that counts. Also, a dictionary that doesn't reflect what people mean when they say a word is a useless batch of paper.
Elitism shows intelligence in many cases, even if the "owner" of that intelligence is a bastard. In this case, I'd rather be an elitist than a moron.
Elitism in language shows ignorance, not intelligence. Linguistic elitism is the kind of convoluted thought that allows people to condemn split infinitives and sentences that end with prepositions.
For the record, "foshizzle" is getting pretty common, and at least it isn't offensive. I'd sooner see "foshizzle" added to the dictionary than this particular definition for "gay".
It isn't common among my generation in my area, but it has over a million hits on Google, so I suppose it's more popular in the east. Here we say "fo sho" a lot more, and Google concurs.
The problem here, once again, is that this "widely-understood" definition is a horribly offensive twist on a previously innocent word - which should NOT be encouraged. Likewise, if anyone tried to create a definition for the word "black", that was "a lazy, ignorant person", I doubt any reputable dictionaries would accept that, no matter how "widely-understood" it was.
Um, again, the dictionaries that wouldn't accept that are pure, 100% useless paper. Besides, in a society where that is accepted, people would use the word regardless, meaning it exists, and it means what they use it to mean.
You can't tell people the words they're using to codify Y don't actually mean Y. That would be like me sitting here telling you that "undulate" means "to play chess".
Wrong-o! The 'original' defintions of "gay" were mainly "gleeful/joyous/happy/etc" and "dissolute". Given the nature of homosexual stereotypes, it's easy to make the leap here. Then the less intellig...err... open minded members of society believed being homosexual was a bad thing, hence "gay" became a term that meant "bad".
And... The words are no longer related. When Bob says Jim is gay, and Jim is dating Tom, then Bob is thinking Jim is a homosexual. When Bob calls himself gay, he's probably thinking he's happy. And when he yells at the vending machine for being gay, he's probably thinking really damn stupid. These definitions are unrelated and fail to overlap. Don't confuse etymology with current definitions.
But this is assuming...
Again, you can't say a word doesn't mean something because you don't accept what it means. I'd be amused if you tried to tell me "pasarica" doesn't mean "bird" in Romanian.
Wrong-o. Again. At least according to dictionary.com, -ity is not a suffix for "gay".
That's because I misspelled it. It should be gayety or gayity, which can be found in the AHD, dictionary.com's main dictionary. Likewise, "gaiety" yeilds ~1,600,000 hits on Google, and "gayety" 281,000.
According to Urban Dictionary, our theoretical definition of "gay" is nouned as gayness, though I personally have never heard this used in conversation (and Google has trouble getting into the thousands on hits using sentences with this definition). So, that was the point I was wrong on.
If you're wondering, "that's gay" gets 125K Google hits, "that's so gay" 53K, and 10.5M hits for "* is gay". Taking an estimated half of those ten million hits gets you somewhere around 5.4 million hits with these few queries, compared to ~14.165 million when similar searches are run with "stupid" in place of "gay" ("that's...", 321,000; "that's so...", 44,700; "* is..." 13,800,000). Pretty good for slang - it's over the amount of hits for both gaiety and gayety combined, and those are in dictionaries.
Must be quite common. Almost as common as the misconception that its usage by contemporary teenagers and college students demonstrates homophobia.
___
~ Silvas ~
Buddha promised me Nirvana and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
"Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." ~ Oscar Wilde
Editor
And yet, if enough people used it to mean that, it suddenly would, right?
In fact, I think I'll start doing that. Shall we undulate? Anyone wanna undulate with me? C'mon, someone undulate! I'm great at undulating!
Almost as common as the misconception that its usage by contemporary teenagers and college students demonstrates homophobia.
Misconception? I've never even ONCE heard someone who finds homosexuality A-OK use the word "gay" in that way (in real life, of course). That's just a pretty big coincidence, I guess.
But whatever, you're clearly arguing what the word means according to society, which I wouldn't trust to decide the font a dictionary uses, much less the actual definitions of a word. I'm arguing what the word currently means, and in this case, every reputable source agrees with me.
---
Kenri: I'm all about the happy little trees
"I am the law, and I find you guilty!" ~The Judge (Batman: The Animated Series)
Liberal Arts Major
In fact, I think I'll start doing that. Shall we undulate? Anyone wanna undulate with me? C'mon, someone undulate! I'm great at undulating!
You must think you're being witty, but there's nothing wrong with this attempt from a linguistic viewpoint - it's called "coining a word". Perhaps you, like Snoop Dog, have heard of it.
Misconception? I've never even ONCE heard someone who finds homosexuality A-OK use the word "gay" in that way (in real life, of course). That's just a pretty big coincidence, I guess.
*points to self*
*laughs at you*
But whatever, you're clearly arguing what the word means according to society, which I wouldn't trust to decide the font a dictionary uses, much less the actual definitions of a word. I'm arguing what the word currently means, and in this case, every reputable source agrees with me.
OK, then. Perhaps I can get you to see the error of your ways with another method.
Who decides what words mean? Dictionaries, right? So, how was mankind able to develop speech? Did people start writing dictionaries before they started speaking? Did God give them the first dictionary? Hm?
If society does not determine the meaning of words, who does, and how does that fit any theory of the genesis of language?
___
~ Silvas ~
Buddha promised me Nirvana and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
"Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." ~ Oscar Wilde