Re: Grammar

[Marcin Borkowski <mbork@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl>]

Dnia Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:00:09PM -0700, David Rogers napisał(a):
> * Marcin Borkowski <mbork@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl> [2010-07-28 00:57]:
> 
> >Dnia Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:06:27PM +0000, John Haltiwanger 
> >napisa&#322;(a):
> >>On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Marcin Borkowski
> >><mbork@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> what an interesting discussion!
> >>>
> >>> My personal point of view is that the so-called "political correctness"
> >>> is something I actively fight against, by means of NOT using "they" or
> >>> "Afroamericans" or other such strange inventions.  These new words
> >>> somehow remind me of Orwell's 1984...
> >>
> >>So what do you write instead? Negro?
> >
> >And what's wrong with "Negro"?  AFAIK, it means "black", so it just
> >describes the reality.  This is what a word should do, right?  And btw,
> >the term "Afroamerican" doesn't really make much sense to me: what would
> >you call a Negro, born in France, and living in Germany, when you wanted
> >to distinguish him from a white man?  (Please note that by "man", I mean
> >"a human being of any sex";).)
> >
> >To be more serious: I accept that there might be a problem caused by the
> >fact that I am not a native speaker of English.  I suspect that somehow
> >the neutral term "Negro" started being used in a derogatory fashion, and
> >that it might be unpleasant to black people to be called Negroes.  And
> >that's why I usually say just "black people".
> 
> Precisely. Some people began to use an ordinary word in a derogatory
> way. After that, the word came to be recognized as ONLY a derogatory
> word, and lost its status as an ordinary word.
> 
> It then seemed that the best thing to do was to find a neutral word to
> replace the derogatory one, so that people could speak without being
> rude. But the new word became dirty as well, so a third word had to be
> brought into service. And so on.
> 
> Part of the problem is that the meaning of a word can be changed by the
> intention of the speaker. Here's an example:
> 
> I know a woman who moved here from another country. Іn the country where
> she lived before, there was a group of people she hated. When she says
> the name of that group, it is a dirty word. When I say the same word, it
> is neutral. And if we teach my friend a new word for that group of
> people, she will change our new word into a dirty word as well. Changing
> the syllables she utters does not change her intention.

Good point.  I would bet my money that "Afroamerican" would be rude in
some 10-20 years if it were a shorter word...  I suspect that it will be
shortened to "Afro" or "Afroam" or something like that and only then
will become derogatory...

> >>'Political correctness' can be onerous, and often contradictory to my
> >>anti-authoritarian nature, but in the end it is not "the Man" who
> >>issues requests for language changes so much as the marginalized
> >>groups that take issue with existing phrasing. Afroamericans, for
> >>instance, was deprecated sometime around that year 1984.. It all boils
> >>down to whether you care about what the people concerned are saying,
> >>which is why I note the author's position when I encounter it. (Rather
> >>than throwing their paper away, ala Khaled).
> >
> >Well, "onerous" might not be the best word.  "Scary" might be better.
> >
> >You see, I am quite convinced that trying to manipulate language "by
> >hand" is a very bad idea.  Maybe this is partly because I live in a
> >former Communist country (Poland); we have seen such things in the past.
> 
> In many cases, marginalized groups do request language changes, but very
> often those requested changes then receive very strong support from "the
> Man". Without that institutional support (mainly from government
> agencies and schools), probably some of the new words would stick;
> others would not. Some new words may be perfectly appropriate; others
> are difficult to understand or even contrary to the truth. (One example:
> in the area where I live, a person who requires treatment in a mental
> hospital is called a "mental health consumer" - yet mental health is not
> something that can be consumed. One of the local men, who has spent much
> of his life in mental hospitals and has become an activist for improving
> the conditions there, rejects such nonsensical labels and insists on
> being called a "crazy person".)

And that's both funny and quite reasonable.

Regards

-- 
Marcin Borkowski (http://mbork.pl)
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________