Re: [NTG-context] Grammar

Dnia Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:00:09PM -0700, David Rogers napisał(a):

* Marcin Borkowski [2010-07-28 00:57]:

...

Dnia Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:06:27PM +0000, John Haltiwanger napisał(a):

...

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Marcin Borkowski 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)