Swear Filter

  • Thread starter Thread starter sl1982
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oxford dictionary.  It is more of an authority on spelling and meaning than you kud
Click to expand...
Good thing that it agrees with me. As The Seer of Shadows said, it is marked as dated and therefore inappropriate in normal speech. In contemporary, standard English, gay means one thing and one thing only, and that thing is "homosexual". It has meant this and only this since before you were born. Its change of meaning is an example of natural semantic change and not some hijacking. If you were to complain about hijacking, you'd be better off complaining about its use as an insult, but even then you'd be like Cnut giving orders to the sea. Don't try to fight against language change. I wish it were possible to do so, but it is not.

It still retains its original meaning in context, or the flintstones is wrong.  The flintstones is too cool to be wrong, so am I and so is the oxford dictionary.
Click to expand...
This Flintstones was made in a different time, when there was still some ambiguity as to the word's meaning. I also imagine that they were trying to get a laugh out of whatever innuendo was there, a la Are You Being Served? and Mrs Slocombe's wet pussy. You might therefore be glad to hear that neither the Flintstones nor the OED are wrong ;D
 
Well so we all know, that once again, you are right and the experts are wrong.  I'll have to throw my oxford dictionary out it seems, and get the one from kudford.

 :mrgreen:
 
Well so we all know, that once again, you are right and the experts are wrong.  I'll have to throw my oxford dictionary out it seems, and get the one from kudford.

 :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
^What this fuckin' guy said
 
Well so we all know, that once again, you are right and the experts are wrong.  I'll have to throw my oxford dictionary out it seems, and get the one from kudford.

 :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Except I agree with the experts. They say that the use of "gay" to mean "happy" is dated, i.e. inappropriate in modern speech and thus should only be used when one is seeking an old-timey feel. I also say that he use of "gay" to mean "happy" is dated, i.e. inappropriate in modern speech and thus should only be used when one is seeking an old-timey feel. You don't need to throw away that dictionary just yet, it says the same thing that I say!

BTW, I'd rather you used facts and evidence than sarcasm in your replies. It's very uncivil.
 
Bosola's comment - Really sorry, I modified rather than quoted! The buttons are right next to each other! You might want to edit this back to its original content

nah it is OK, I do that all the time on my own forum.   :mrgreen:


Well I supplied my evidence, it was the dictionary stating multiple meanings for the word Gay.  You simply stated it wasn't true and because the word is outdated in that context, it is not allowed to be used as such in modern usage.


Which is, I am afraid, false. You can spin that any way you like... but you are wrong    Yet again though, I am arguing with you over something that is a blatant fact and just for the sake of you wanting an argument, so I will stop here and let you show us all the proof that gay no longer means what is quoted in my previous post, which was taken directly from the Oxford Dictionary.  Also show us proof that it can no longer be used as such... I would like to see "This can no longer be used" or words to that effect, if you can't find such evidence in the Oxford dictionary then you have to concede you are wrong.

You won't but oh well.
 
Last edited:
Well I supplied my evidence, it was the dictionary stating multiple meanings for the word Gay.  You simply stated it wasn't true and because the word is outdated in that context, it is not allowed to be used as such in modern usage.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about it not being allowed. I described it's usage, not prescribed it. I don't have the OED's glossary of terms at hand, but when a word is described as dated it usually indicates that it is only likely to be used by old people and that the linguistic community in general considers it to be obsolete.

Which is, I am afraid, false. You can spin that any way you like... but you are wrong :)   Yet again though, I am arguing with you over something that is a blatant fact and just for the sake of you wanting an argument, so I will stop here and let you show us all the proof that gay no longer means what is quoted in my previous post, which was taken directly from the Oxford Dictionary.  Also show us proof that it can no longer be used as such... I would like to see "This can no longer be used" or words to that effect, if you can't find such evidence in the Oxford dictionary then you have to concede you are wrong.

You won't but oh well.
Click to expand...
Oh look it's the "I can't prove Kudistos wrong so I'll say he's trolling and his opinion can be ignored" argument again!

I don't need to provide evidence: you've provided it for me! You quoted the OED as saying that the meaning is dated and therefore considered wrong by people not of pensionable age. The last time I checked, you were not in this category. PROTIP: dated refers to words like negro to describe black people. The term will be heard from some people, but it will sound very, very wrong to modern ears. A dated word is obsolete to all intents and purposes; it's only used by the people who have yet to get the memo.
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree with Kudistos on this one. While the dictionary term is still a valid use, if you try to use it in speech you will find that what you said and what people think you mean are two vastly different things.
 
Words only exist through dint of consensus. And human beings change these words for good reasons - because they need to express things in new ways.

If we're really going to stick to etymologies, are we going to revert back to the 14th century meaning of 'sad' (meaning 'firm' or 'steady')?
 
If we're really going to stick to etymologies, are we going to revert back to the 14th century meaning of 'sad' (meaning 'firm' or 'steady')?
Click to expand...
The word sad has been hijacked by militant bi-polar activists!

ITT: People being trolled by DLPB
Click to expand...
Poe's law.

Anyway, shouldn't you be threatening him with your mod powers if he's trolling?
 
If it creates disruption, yes.
Click to expand...
That would probably be how I'd deal with it too.

One of the reasons why there was a scene the last time I disagreed with Seifer is because everyone felt the need to "help" to stop anything escalating. Sometimes interference in arguments cause the escalation it seeks to prevent.
 
Kudi, here's the problem.  Whether or not that definition is dated or not, isn't the issue.  There is no debate that it's dated.  This still doesn't change the fact that it is an equally valid definition, while it may sound out of place, using the vernacular of our times, it is still 100% valid, according to OED anyway.
 
If you want legitimate definitions for words use urban dictionary.

/thread
 
Kudi, here's the problem.  Whether or not that definition is dated or not, isn't the issue.  There is no debate that it's dated.  This still doesn't change the fact that it is an equally valid definition, while it may sound out of place, using the vernacular of our times, it is still 100% valid, according to OED anyway.
Click to expand...
The OED doesn't deal with validity, nor, if it did, would inclusion in the OED imply validity. ♥ is in the OED, but that doesn't mean it's a "valid" word in standard English. The OED contains a lot of words that aren't used or aren't meant to be used or aren't appropriate in certain contexts. If an entry is market as dated, it means that the definition is considered obsolete and, yes, wrong, by most people, insofar as a word can be "wrong".
 
The OED doesn't deal with validity, nor, if it did, would inclusion in the OED imply validity. ♥ is in the OED, but that doesn't mean it's a "valid" word in standard English. The OED contains a lot of words that aren't used or aren't meant to be used or aren't appropriate in certain contexts. If an entry is market as dated, it means that the definition is considered obsolete and, yes, wrong, by most people, insofar as a word can be "wrong".
Click to expand...
The OED does deal with validity though, it's the very basis for what is and isn't a word in the English language.  If it isn't in the OED it generally isn't accepted as a word.  Beyond that, ANY English dictionary has the dated (or invalid, by your standards), definition of the word gay.  So even if you don't agree with the OED, it is still valid under most any other dictionary you look in.  If I were to say that someone seemed awful gay today, you can't say that my use of the word to mean happy is incorrect.  Strange in our vernacular, yes, incorrect, no.  How do you not grasp this concept?
 
In my view, meanings are marked as "dated", rather than being outright excluded, so that if we encounter that word in some form of ancient literature, the context of which took place at a time when the meaning wasn't dated, then we have a meaning to apply to it.  Does that make sense?  It's probably just my childish way of looking at the world 8)

I think I'll retire from this thread now.
 
The OED does deal with validity though, it's the very basis for what is and isn't a word in the English language.  If it isn't in the OED it generally isn't accepted as a word.  Beyond that, ANY English dictionary has the dated (or invalid, by your standards), definition of the word gay.  So even if you don't agree with the OED, it is still valid under most any other dictionary you look in.  If I were to say that someone seemed awful gay today, you can't say that my use of the word to mean happy is incorrect.  Strange in our vernacular, yes, incorrect, no.  How do you not grasp this concept?
Click to expand...
How do you not grasp the concept of not affirming the consequent? Even if we assumed it were true (it isn't) that words aren't valid if they're not in the dictionary, it doesn't follow that they are valid if they are in it. If all cats are four-legged animals and my dog is a four-legged animal, does that mean that my dog is a cat?

The OED simply records words that are used in the English language. Many of those words might no longer be used or might only be used in certain dialects or registers. This is one of those words. If the linguistic community does not accept that "gay" means "happy", then it does not mean "happy". If it seems strange, that means it's not being used in a way that people consider acceptable.

In my view, meanings are marked as "dated", rather than being outright excluded, so that if we encounter that word in some form of ancient literature, the context of which took place at a time when the meaning wasn't dated, then we have a meaning to apply to it.  Does that make sense?  It's probably just my childish way of looking at the world 8)
Click to expand...
You more or less have the right idea.
 
Do we have anything more to say about the swear filter? This linguistics stuff is at risk of commandeering the whole thread.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top