|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
Good evening everyone,
Is it just me or do I detect that if an authority/public figure incorrectly uses a word then the vast majority of others (including their peers) jump on the bandwagon and this misuse snowballs?
There is one word in particular which is misused quite occasionally on television and in newsprint. That word is 'decimate'.
Its literal meaning, and excuse me as I do not have the benefit of a dictionary to hand to give the precise definition, is 'to reduce by one tenth'. It was first used to describe the Roman practice of killing one tenth of their or their opponents' troops and comes from the Latin 'deci' menaing ten.
It is confused with, I suppose, 'devastated'. Most examples I can give relate to reports from war areas (so there are plenty as I write) and come in the form of 'The enemy positions were completely decimated'. Ten times over, I can only presume.
Has anyone else noticed this malapropism in reporting or elsewhere?
|
|
|
#2658
05/20/2000 10:54 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 140
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 140 |
The misunderstanding and misuse of this word is not just occasional in this neck of the woods, it is quite widespread. I know all about English being a living language, but I can't abide the degradation of our language throiugh ignorance, especiallly when it comes about, as you suggest, by people picking up a "buzz-word" they don't understand and using it simply for effect. BTW, loved your example of "completely decimated".
Rgds, lusy
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163 |
Although I cannot remember any examples I use to get pretty annoyed when things like what you’re telling about ‘decimate’ happens, and it happens a lot. Lately I’m trying to be more tolerant and think that it must be the that way language evolves and all that crap (sorry but I’m reading ‘Catcher in the rye’ and it’s sort of ‘catchy’) but, anyway, it keeps bothering me.
Since, due to my lack of knowledge, I can’t write without a dictionary at hand I’m going to transcript the definition I have of ‘decimation’ that fully agrees with your posting.
decimate —tr. v.-mat·ed., -mat·ing., -mates. 1. To destroy or kill a large part of. 2. To select by lot and kill one in every ten of. [Lat. decimare, decimat- < decimus, tenth < decem, ten.] dec'i·ma´tion n.
USAGE: Decimate originally meant to kill every tenth person, a punishment sometimes inflicted by Roman commanders. The meaning has been extended to include the destruction of any large proportion of a group: Famine decimated the population. The Usage Panel accepts this extension but considers that decimate should not be used to describe the destruction of a single person, or an entire group, or any specified percentage other than one-tenth; avoid a sentence such as The famine decimated 37 per cent of the population.
Microsoft Bookshelf © 1987 - 1992 Microsoft Corp. All Rights Reserved. The American Heritage Dictionary and Electronic Thesaurus are licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1986, 1987 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Based upon Roget's II: The New Thesaurus.
Juan Maria.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
from the link I gave above: Sixty-six percent of the Usage Panel accepts this extension in the sentence 'The Jewish population of Germany was decimated by the war', even though it is common knowledge that the number of Jews killed was much greater than a tenth of the original population. But when the meaning is further extended to include large-scale destruction other than killing, as in 'The supply of fresh produce was decimated by the accident at Chernobyl', only 26 percent of the panel accepts the usage. The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. 1996 http://members.aol.com/tsuwm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163 |
I read your post after having posted mine and both usage notes make me understand that ‘decimate’ is now acceptable for an undetermined number of casualties but ‘completely decimated’ or ‘decimated 37 per cent of the population’ are not acceptable. At least don’t sound good to me.
The thing that your link -great site by the way- has confirmed me is that ‘decimate’ was a disciplinary action taken by the roman chiefs against their own troops. I was pretty sure but this article confirmed it.
Juan Maria.
|
|
|
#2663
05/22/2000 12:42 PM
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
Ah, but you see, this is my point. An English word which has clear meaning has been broadly accepted to have yet another, and quite contradictory, one! From the above posts I can see that those who determine the official parlance of the English language - including the Usage Panel (who they?) - clearly have no problem in adopting incorrect usage of a word if the majority of people do so. To use a parallel example - there are not just a few people doing it, there are quite a few!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
here's a word which has undergone a radical shift which bothers me: chauvinist This comes from French and originally referred to an overly patriotic veteran of the Napoleonic wars; now it is used almost exclusively (at least in the US) as a synonym for 'sexist'! Most folks think that 'male chauvinist' is a pleonasm!! (a superfluity of words, for those of you not following along at home :) I was reminded of this by today's Random House Word-of-the-Day; here's the link, but it only points to the the current word: http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/http://members.aol.com/tsuwm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
Congratulations on your graduation to enthusiast, Michael. I guess this makes you a 'chauvinist' of sorts (purely in its original form, of course!).
|
|
|
#2667
05/22/2000 10:40 PM
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
You're telling me!! Apart from a few people whom I recognise - I see the the name of the prominent astronomer, Carl Sagan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences; writer; recipient, Pulitzer Prize
listed amongst this illustrious group.
The only problem is that Carl has been six feet under for about five years now. I wonder how many others on the panel are vertically-challenged?
I'm being flippant. I hope to get a chance to read the ways they reach a consensus asap.
I'm a bit sceptical (yes, it is an accepted form of skeptical) about the different methods to determine the courses of the diverging branches of US/UK English. To be blunt - why bastardise a common language? Sure, slang and local dialect play a big part in the development of English in the US but what are the Usage panel trying to achieve?? I have never heard of a similar group on this side of the pond.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163 |
The thing is whether those changes of use or meaning are for better or for worse. It’s a subjective thing, what for some people is language evolution for others is bastardization.
As I told you before I don’t like when a word or expression starts being misused by the media or by some fashionable group of people and this misuse catches and becomes a normal practice. But, maybe, it’s an excessive conservativeness of mine. I want to think that it’s the way language evolves but I can’t help not liking it.
Juan Maria.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163 |
I didn’t know this use of chauvinist and I can’t help disliking it. I’ve just made a post about this subject but this example of yours fits perfectly in what I wrote before.
Juan Maria.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>>The only problem is that Carl has been six feet under for about five years now. I wonder how many others on the panel are vertically-challenged?<<
quite a few, actually -- this edition of the AHD was published in '96 and several of the panelists have "bought the farm" since then (they're all *ed on the list). By all means check out the other link; I found it very helpful in understanding what the usage panel is about.
We're skating around the edges here of how our language evolves; usages become sometimes broader, sometimes narrower; old words no longer suffice because of these shifts, so new ones are borrowed or coined; some perfectly good words fall into desuetude. Not to beat a dead horse, but it's how we arrived at 500,000 words! (OED estimate)
BTW, I *like* what's happened to decimate; the original sense isn't all that useful to me, other then as an etymological point of interest. On the other hand, I *hate* what's been done to chauvinist in the US!
"What's another word for Thesaurus?" -Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
The group you describe sounds like the one they have in France. The only difference is that in France they are creating new words to avoid the incursion of the monoculture "le weekend" etc.
Wasn't there a panel which was set up in the USA to make spelling simpler "donut" and "thru" for example. Do you know a link that discussed the simplification of spelling?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
Here's a link which discusses the early days of the simplified spelling movement (for those of us who are enthusiastic but not expert). http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/P1/ahonen.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
> The thing is whether those changes of use or meaning are for better or for worse. It’s a subjective thing, what for some
people is language evolution for others is bastardization.
As I told you before I don’t like when a word or expression starts being misused by the media or by some fashionable
group of people and this misuse catches and becomes a normal practice. But, maybe, it’s an excessive
conservativeness of mine. I want to think that it’s the way language evolves but I can’t help not liking it.
A very good and valid point, Juanmaria. However, I'm not all that Black and white. Language evolution is all well and fine and inevitable BUT if you have a common language used in many far-flung countries of the world (I'll use English as the obvious example) and those countries adopt differing definitions for certain words then the whole language will eventually fall into chaos and confusion. A standard has to be adopted to prevent word definitions from deviating too far from their original meanings no matter how appealing they may seem in their present, 'adopted' form. We have standards for measurement, time zones even computers - why not words too? Okay, we do have standards for words but they are often overlooked.
|
|
|
#2674
05/24/2000 10:47 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163 |
What puzzles me is that really I agree with you. But I’m not completely happy with myself thinking this way because when I think about language standardization -I really love standards- I consider that if this practice had been enforced by the old Romans I would be speaking Latin instead of Spanish and the world would be deprived of such a beautiful languages as French Italian or Portuguese.
As you can see I’m totally mixed-up with that question, as happens me with almost every other thing in life.
Juan Maria.
|
|
|
#2675
05/24/2000 12:44 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
> BUT if you have a common language used in many far-flung countries of the world (I'll use English as the obvious example) and those countries adopt differing definitions for certain words then the whole language will eventually fall into chaos and confusion.
Hasn't the cat already been let out of the bag? Aren't our languages already different. I see it as slightly sad that we are heading towards more standardisation. Before today's fast communications a word might only travel a few miles - look at the many local variations for a bread roll. Now a new word, coined in Melbourne or in Silicon Valley is conveyed to Delhi almost as easily as Denver.
The English that is spoken in Delhi relates to a colonial heritage but it has moved on and become theirs in the same way that the language of London, Washington DC and Canberra belongs to the people who live in those countries. As we try to converse with people from other countries more and buy our goods from the Internet the differences must be decreasing rather than increasing.
|
|
|
#2676
05/24/2000 12:51 PM
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
> What puzzles me is that really I agree with you. But I’m not completely happy with myself thinking this way because
when I think about language standardization -I really love standards- I consider that if this practice had been enforced by
the old Romans I would be speaking Latin instead of Spanish and the world would be deprived of such a beautiful
languages as French Italian or Portuguese.
Ah, but they did. I am sure that these forementioned languages only developed into their present forms after the fall of the Roman Empire and the standards were no longer enforced. Just like the Germanic languages which have only really diverged in the past 700 years I can guess that the Latin languages are just as relatively new and the natural barriers of the Alps and the Pyrenees only aided their development. With the Moorish invasion I presume that there are also Arabic words included in present day Spanish?
We, in the present day, cannot afford to be so lax with our dealings with words. This noticeboard would become Babelised if each of us were to adopt separate meanings for our words and use them periodically in everyday use. The technology of instant messaging itself dictates that we adopt a standard that is understandable to everyone. The shrinking world means that languages are becoming more tightly knit and and they are less likely to devolve into progenic entities than was common over the past millenium.
But I don't mean to sound pedantic. This is purely a speculative opinion ;^)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
> Wasn't there a panel which was set up in the USA to make spelling simpler "donut" and "thru" for example.
Yes, it's the Ministry for Truth or Minitru. Definitely a version of Newspeak! ;^)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163 |
Actually we have lots of Arabic words. Not only toponyms but everyday words. Even my wife’s second name is ‘Alfageme’. If a Spanish word starts with ‘al-‘ ‘ben-‘ or ‘guad-‘ it’s very likely an Arabic word, ‘guad-‘ stands for river while ‘ben-‘ stands for son.
What appears clear on this discussion is that nowadays world needs a standard way of communication. A sort of English-based Esperanto could be maintained by an international committee. This would assure reliable worldwide communication without thwarting local language evolution.
Returning to Latin, during centuries philosophers and scientist used Latin as a common language long after the fall of the Roman Empire. As you can see my idea is not an original one.
Juan Maria.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
As Jo pointed out: >As we try to converse with people from other countries more and buy our goods from the Internet the differences must be decreasing rather than increasing. Indeed, my first thought upon reading these past several posts is that the internet has sort of jumped into the breach like a latter-day Deus-ex-machina to prevent the "Babelization" at least of English, at least among the literate. The way I see it is growing internet use will force agreement on meaning, and that agreement will trickle down. Individually, we may not agree with the agreed-upon definition, but, hey... whatchagunnado? When I was in college I participated in a usage/lexical survey called The Linguistic Atlas of the South Atlantic States, a parallel effort to the University of Wisconsin's Dictionary of American Regional English. Back then, you'd hear "pail" on one side of the tracks and "bucket" on the other. Now, while you may still hear such local differences, they are certainly outweighed by the fact that I, for example, know what a scone is and Jo knows what a donut is. :-) It would seem to me the language is, in fact, expanding. I think it's all for the best. http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/dare/dare.htmlhttp://hyde.park.uga.edu/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
> here's a word which has undergone a radical shift which bothers me: chauvinist
This comes from French and originally referred to an overly patriotic veteran of the Napoleonic wars; now it is used
almost exclusively (at least in the US) as a synonym for 'sexist'! Most folks think that 'male chauvinist' is a pleonasm!!
(a superfluity of words, for those of you not following along at home :)
I gave tsuwm plaudits earlier for his definition and use of this word. Now, after drafting in my OED, I am not so sure that I should have been so hasty with my praise. You didn't give us the FULL definition!
True, a chauvinist was a loyal, overly patriotic veteran of the Napoeleonic wars but he was also someone who favoured men and prejudiced against women. I can only presume that the typical chauvinist of the time engaged in the 'spoils of war'.
Apologies to female posters for any offence caused.
|
|
|
#2681
05/25/2000 10:35 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
I lived in Oxford for a while and took one of those touristy tours round the colleges. I was surprised to learn that each college drew scholars from a particular part of the country. This was partly because it was impossible for people from different parts of Britain (as late as the 14th Century - or even later?) to understand each other. Scholarly discourse had to take place in Latin as it was the only language that everyone could understand. So understanding each other across relatively small boundaries is a fairly recent phenemenon.
|
|
|
#2682
05/25/2000 10:43 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
Rubrick
I wondered if there was something missing in the original definition - sounds much more like it.
|
|
|
#2683
05/25/2000 10:29 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
'brick writes:
>>You didn't give us the FULL definition!
True, a chauvinist was a loyal, overly patriotic veteran of the Napoeleonic wars but he was also someone who favoured men and prejudiced against women. I can only presume that the typical chauvinist of the time engaged in the 'spoils of war'.<<
I have to admit that you've got me flummoxed on this one!
My reading of the OED (under chauvinism) relates early usage (1870s ff) to (the British) 'jingoism' exclusively. It goes on to give citations for other forms of chauvinism, with adjectival modifiers, such as male chauvinism, female chauvinism, carbon chauvinism (from Carl Sagan!), etc. All of the citations for male chauvinism are post-1970. This puts about 100 years between the original sense and the sexist sense -- and what I objected to was totally dropping the modifier; i.e., chauvinist == male chauvinist.
|
|
|
#2684
05/26/2000 11:55 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
>Scholarly discourse had to take place in Latin as it was the only language that everyone could understand. <
Even though I didn't despise Latin at school, I can't dispel a lingering suspicion that even in the Middle Age it was also used for the purpose that only the "chosen ones" could understand. (alchemy, medicine, law..)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
> I have to admit that you've got me flummoxed on this one!
My reading of the OED (under chauvinism) relates early usage (1870s ff) to (the British) 'jingoism' exclusively. It goes on
to give citations for other forms of chauvinism, with adjectival modifiers, such as male chauvinism, female chauvinism,
carbon chauvinism (from Carl Sagan!), etc. All of the citations for male chauvinism are post-1970. This puts about 100
years between the original sense and the sexist sense -- and what I objected to was totally dropping the modifier; i.e.,
chauvinist == male chauvinist.
The original definition is indicative of chauvinism being a uniquely male trait (though not in all males, I hasten to add!) which would imply that the 'male' prefix is redundant. I can't see members of the opposite sex being called 'female chauvinists' (though there are plenty of female sexists about!) - unless it is an antinym of the male definition. I was unaware of the many other definitions you have given above, tsuwm (Carl Sagan - a chauvinist? Shurely not.) but perhaps the current meaning has evolved from the resurgence of the word through contemporary '60s/'70s literature. However, I hate speculating too much without some solid material to back me up so I shall trawl for references. Looks like we have a discussion on our hands. Ladies. Care to throw in your valuable comments?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>The original definition is indicative of chauvinism being a uniquely male trait
That's a bit of a distortion, I think. Seeing as how it was applied in a very narrow sense to overly patriotic "veterans of the Napoleonic Wars", that pretty much excludes women (without saying anything directly about them)! I'm not going to claim that sexism wasn't (or was) rampant at the time, but neither does this word, in the original sense, say anything about it. (IMHO)
>. I was unaware of the many other definitions you have given above, tsuwm (Carl Sagan - a chauvinist? Shurely not.) but perhaps the current meaning has evolved from the resurgence of the word through contemporary '60s/'70s literature.
Take another look at the OED citations if you get a chance. With these you can trace the evolution of the usage. I don't think you can make the case for any "resurgence".
Clearly, the move from the narrow, jingoistic sense to the broader usages follow. I think that the Carl Sagan usage was to the effect that people who expect aliens to have a humanoid appearance are being carbon-chauvinists! (see, there you go assuming I meant Carl was a sexist!! ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
> That's a bit of a distortion, I think. Seeing as how it was applied in a very narrow sense to overly patriotic "veterans of the
Napoleonic Wars", that pretty much excludes women (without saying anything directly about them)! I'm not going to
claim that sexism wasn't (or was) rampant at the time, but neither does this word, in the original sense, say anything
about it. (IMHO)
Quite right. But my last post was peppered with speculation and presumptions. I presumed that the vast majority of the veterans were men (as most likely was the case) and, as such, that that definition would apply to them and not to the female minority.
The reference to sexism was an aside and has nothing to do with the definition or my interpretation of it.
> Take another look at the OED citations if you get a chance. With these you can trace the evolution
of the usage. I don't think you can make the case for any "resurgence".
Clearly, the move from the narrow, jingoistic sense to the broader usages follow. I think that the
Carl Sagan usage was to the effect that people who expect aliens to have a humanoid appearance
are being carbon-chauvinists! (see, there you go assuming I meant Carl was a sexist!! ;)
Point taken. Jingoism dates from pre-suffragette (suffragist) times so could this be a step in the evolutionary cycle of 'chauvinism' -> 'male chauvinism'? i.e. that it was attributed to the male-dominated jingoists by the female-dominated suffragettes (or am I losing the plot here?).
Of course I wasn't calling Carl a sexist - I called him a chauvinist!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
okay, I *think I see where you're coming from now. By saying that it was a male concept to begin with, you would claim that saying "male" chauvinist is redundant. But the problem with that is that the modifier speaks to "what" it is you are being "overly patriotic" to, and not about what sex you are! Thus, a male-chauvinist is overly dedicated to the male cause, a female-chauvinist to the female cause and a carbon-chauvinist to the carbon-based lifeform cause.
Does this help?
for those following along at home, here's the MWCD definition, which shows the sense progression (and recall that it took 100 years to arrive at sense 3)
chau*vin*ism (noun)
[French chauvinisme, from Nicolas Chauvin, character noted for his excessive patriotism and devotion to Napoleon in Theodore and Hippolyte Cogniard's play La Cocarde tricolore (1831)]
First appeared 1870
1 : excessive or blind patriotism -- compare JINGOISM
2 : undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
3 : an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex; also : behavior expressive of such an attitude
-- chau*vin*ist (noun or adjective)
-- chau*vin*is*tic (adjective)
-- chau*vin*is*ti*cal*ly (adverb)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
> okay, I *think I see where you're coming from now. By saying that it was a male concept to being with, you would claim
that saying "male" chauvinist is redundant. But the problem with that is that the modifier speaks to "what" it is you are
being "overly patriotic" to, and not about what sex you are! Thus, a male-chauvinist is overly dedicated to the male
cause, a female-chauvinist to the female cause and a carbon-chauvinist to the carbon-based lifeform cause.
Does this help?
Nooooo. Mommy, my head hurts.
I thought a woman overly dedicated to the female cause was a feminist. After all, you never hear of a maleist, do you?? (or do you?).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
the 'opposite' of a feminist is a masculinist (MWCD: an advocate of male superiority or dominance), actually.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
> the 'opposite' of a feminist is a masculinist (MWCD: an advocate of male superiority or dominance), actually.
Of course it is! Male - Female. Masculine - Feminine. Put that slight overlook down to Friday evening ennui.
Have a good weekend!
'brick
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Dr. Sieber,
I can't say for sure either (but will ask my expert friend
asap) about the use of Latin, but I think you're
probably right.
Something that goes along with this is the development of
stained glass windows in churches. Commoners could neither
read, nor understand what the priests were saying, so these
windows were a way of getting the message across.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
>Ladies. Care to throw in your valuable comments?<
Well, thanks, 'Brick, but I will invoke one of my favorite
sayings here: "I just love work. I can sit around and
watch it all day."
You two fellas are fielding flying fake fisticuffs just
fine. 'Preciate your-all's good manners!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>I thought a woman overly dedicated to the female cause was a feminist. okay (now that we got past the 'malist' tangent <g>), we've arrived at my point. consider our definitions: chauvinism - 3) an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex masculinist - an advocate of male superiority or dominance so, by definition, a male chauvinist is a masculinist. okay, so we started out with chauvinist having a very narrow definition; over time the definition became broader in that it was applied to various groups and places (see sense #2). And then it shifted to the *narrow* sense of sexist, and (the worst!), because we all know <ahem> that men are more prone to being sexist, we've (again, this may be unique to the US) arrived at chauvinist being used as a synonym for masculinist! [this is similar to what happened with 'decimate', which started out applying to a narrow ratio (1 in 10) of punishment and the definition was broadened to include "a large part of" (and then it got misused by *narrowing* application to specific ratios other than 1 in 10).] ...and a good weekend to you too, 'brick!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>Ladies. Care to throw in your valuable comments?<
No, like Jackie its just fine and dandy to watch you boys there slugging it out.
Not sure we're answering to "ladies" at the moment - thought it was a sign on them there "restrooms" we were talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163 |
It’s amazing how things we are taken for granted may be recent in a historical point of view. Even mankind might be considered a recent phenomenon through earth history -but I’m digressing-.
I imagine that by the end of 15th Century Gutenberg’s invention started putting an end to that local Babel Tower.
Juan Maria.
|
|
|
|
|
