|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Did you know the phrase "nitty-gritty" is a racist term, and in UK you can be disciplined for using it. Somebody allegedly discovered that it referred to detritus in bilge of slave ships. Believe it or not. Here is URL to BBC story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1988681.stmQuinion says nitty-gritty first recorded in 1950s/ So "slave ship" origin seems impossible. http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-nit2.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
PC gone mad? ... sounds like it.
I think the most logical explanation is given by Quinion, being that "it is a reduplication - using the same mechanism that has given us namby-pamby and itsy-bitsy - of the standard English word gritty."
Case closed in my eyes.
What really amuses me is how valiantly and with which authority people will support there own version of a word's etymology in a conversation, as if it gave them a deeper understanding of any "true meaning' the word might have. Strangely enough, this tendency seems to be all the more solid, the more ludicrous, abstract or iffy the etymological explanation is.
I recently discussed the origins of the word 'posh' (discussed previously here I believe) with someone who was utterly certain that it was short for "Port Out, Starboard Home". I suggested that this was possibly just a story, if a really good one, and that it had absolutely no proof to support it. This was out of the question for my conversation partner, they had heard it on the radio and many people believed it. For me it once again reinforced that the notion of truth as absurd outside the realms of theological and philosophical contexts. For if one person believes something, they're a loony and it's a lie; if a group does they're a cult and the notion is mystical nonsense, and if 80% of people do then it's truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Does this mean The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band has to change it's name, then?  And is gritty non-offensive without nitty? Can nitty stand alone inoffensively without gritty? Is gritty-nitty acceptable? Is it the optional hyphen that drives it into denigration? Are the Thought Police done disemboweling the language, yet?  The bilge in slave ships, or any ship, was also dirty water. Can we say that anymore? Can we say dirty? Can we say water? Can we say bilge? Can we say the bilge in slave ships without being accused of alluding to the nitty-gritty? (if, indeed, as by says, that myth of association is true) For years I was openly embracing the new myth about the black African Cleopatra until I realized one day...wait a minute, she was a Ptolemy, she was Greek! As I said before, that kind of false historic revisionism for PC purposes irks me, mainly because I love history too much to subvert it falsely for modern agendas. And I'd feel the same about contrived etymologies for words and phrases to fit the same purposes (though I never gave this much thought, nor, indeed, harbored any notion that anyone would go to such lengths to garnish another notch on the PC belt until this thread, but evidently...sigh).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Another version of the "truth":
The noun nitty-gritty dates from the mid-1900s and alludes to the detailed (“nitty”) and possibly unpleasant (“gritty”) issue in question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Yes, by, it came as a shock--a series of them, rather--to realize that for many many things there is no one, exact, right answer. And even now I find that thought unsettling. I want to know everything about something I'm interested in, right down to the last detail (though not necessarily the nitty gritty!  ), and I want my knowledge to be concrete and certain. Grr. I grew up in an era (barely) that taught that "the guvmint" has the ultimate, and correct, answers. Well, it didn't take me long, once I started working for the state, to realize that no one does. Government, and even the military, are made up of just people. Not necessarily the brightest and best, either. As I said before, that kind of false historic revisionism for PC purposes irks me, mainly because I love history too much to subvert it falsely for modern agendas. And I'd feel the same about contrived etymologies for words and phrases to fit the same purposes (though I never gave this much thought, nor, indeed, harbored any notion that anyone would go to such lengths to garnish another notch on the PC belt until this thread, but evidently...sigh). I agree, Sweet WO'N. Though as I hinted in my paragraph above, I no longer trust that history really happened the way I was taught that it did. "History" is generally recorded by the victors, as my husband says; and he's right. To say nothing of laziness and outright falsehoods. I think one should be sure of one's facts, before yelling about political correctness; and even then, the caterwauling isn't always necessary. (For ex., something I've griped about here before: changing "man" or "men" in hymns written long ago to "all", or "people". Yuck!) We cannot make retribution for every wrong done down through history. Let's stick to what is relevant today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
(For ex., something I've griped about here before: changing "man" or "men" in hymns written long ago to "all", or "people". Yuck!)
no, but we can raise our children not to think of a certain gender when they sing those hymns, because to some of them, man, or men has very negative connotations. besides, why shouldn't we use language today that speaks more of the way we understand things? personally, I would rather bite the bullet and re-learn some things rather than forcing my children to be the ones that make the change. we sacrifice all sorts of things for our children, why aren't you willing to give up little things like a little language in an old song? things aren't what they used to be and they never were.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
why shouldn't we use language today that speaks more of the way we understand things? personally, I would rather bite the bullet and re-learn some things rather than forcing my children to be the ones that make the change. we sacrifice all sorts of things for our children, why aren't you willing to give up little things like a little language in an old song? things aren't what they used to be and they never were.
Mercy--this wasn't what I was expecting to be challenged on! But... partially, this is my inherent respect (but not blind respect) for the old--people, too. And partly my innate dislike of change. I'd like to key in on two words you used: 'today', and 'little'. We CAN use language that is relevant to today, in our compositions. I would take offense at a contemporary hymn that essentially said worship was for males only. We can teach our children what I was taught: that that was the way people talked/wrote back then, but that we know better now. It is, as you say, a little thing, to leave or change the language in an old song. I said (I hope) in my other post that I think that we owe a measure of respect to the music and to the composer, and that to change what he or she intended violates that respect. Each time a new hymnal is considered, decisions are made to leave certain ones out. I for one prefer to let them die this "natural" death than to alter what has withstood the test of time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
I have to agree with Jackie on this one, etaoin. I feel that going back and changing works of art (re: song lyrics) is censoring the artist's work and impairing, if not ruining, their sense of history and their poetry. I remember being aghast when I first encountered in my folk songshare circles, a new sing-along book which broadcast on the jacket that it had been "edited" for "lyrics which may be offensive", and was co-edited by, of all people, Mr. Freedom Fighter himself, Pete Seeger! Here they took the audacious presumption of changing "a brotherhood of man" in John Lennon's Imagine, and, ridiculously enough, "sitting around the campfire, everybody's high" in John Denver's Rocky Mountain High, with "everybody's high" being the offending phrase, evidently. C'mon, for cryin' out loud, you can be high on nature, high on life, in high spirits, and if you are high on pot in that mellow, friendly circumstance, so what?
When we start censoring John Denver, I thought, when Pete Seeger starts censoring John Denver, we are getting into serious trouble here, folks. And this sort of ludicrous butchery was rampant all throughout the songbook. This really started me on a hard rethink of what was going on with this whole PC process. I had fully embraced, and still do, the sensible changes where appropriate...firefighters for firemen, for instance. But, like many things, it started out with good intentions, and then, for some reason, people started running amok with it. There's no freedom in having to analyse every word I say or write before I write or say it because I might offend somebody when I am not, nor have I ever been, the kind of person who seeks to hurt people that way (except, of course, in some personal squabbles, with personal vindictive). And you might say, well, there's some unintended subtle nuance of offense there, which was the initial reason for all this, and that might be true...but then that perspective has grown to presuppose an ingrained and intentional, albeit subconscious, racism, sexism, or whatever the hateism, just because you're "carelessly" not-PC...and I resent this negative painting of my, or anybody else's, character just because someone now decides to deem some new term or part of language as undesirable, as in the instance of nitty gritty.
And I will always sing "a brotherhood of man" in John Lennon's Imagine because it's beautiful, and it has the most meaning for me, and it's what the man meant (a poetical and musical genius IMHO, BTW) when he wrote the song, the image the poet chose, and if there's a woman or feminist activist out there who takes umbrage at that, I'm sorry...but that's her problem...to think I intend any disrespect or offense by singing that touching and beautiful song, a song of love and peace, is just plain ridiculous.
And sitting around the campfire everybody's high...always and forever! I mean, sheesh!
When you're sitting around a campfire is your mood usually low?!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
While it is true that the pendulum of history has swung to oversensitivity after centuries of episodes of man's inhumanity to man [sic]; I'm with Jackie and Juan on this one: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. For aesthetic reasons, I stick with King James' translators of the Bible; for historical reasons, it is ludicrous to suppose Christ could have been a woman. Those subjective thoughts aside, you can't go messing around with somebody's art. It's like putting a fig leaf on Michelangelo's David or something. Also, consider this: in Old English man meant 'human being.' The female sex was denoted as wyfman and the male, as wæpman. Maybe this historical insight might help those sensitive children get over their negative feelings, and see the word in a broader sense, eta?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
It's like putting a fig leaf on Michelangelo's David or something.Yes, and that would be a mighty big fig leaf! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
And here's another "for instance":
Sometime during his second term Bill Clinton made a speech or comment using the word welsh or welsher. There was a public outcry by a group of Welsh-Americans (The Welsh-American League or something like that) who said it denigrated the Welsh and they demanded an apology which Clinton conceded to give. Oh, c'mon...
I've been using that word all my life as welch or welcher meaning reneging on a bet or promise, never having the slightest clue it ever had anything to do with the Welsh until this "controversy" erupted. It was just a word to me, and, as such, of course, carried no intention of insult or offense to anyone except for the deadbeat friend I directed it towards (usually in a joking manner). And I'm sure that the word, in either form, had become as generic to everyone else. Suddenly, it's on the PC list, because a small group, who probably don't represent or speak for all Welsh-Americans or the Welsh people, decided, after all this time, that it is now offensive.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,316
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
400
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
