defintions and the changes needed

[therebel]

well a couple of my friends have been using words that i feel are offensive and i feel that they should be re defintioned basically the word retarted and the D word not Dam the other one that means a stream of water coming out of a womens.....yeah so this is what i mean he uses thoughs words all the time

[Serpentine]

Um... Language doesn't work that way? :smallconfused: And they're all legitimate words anyway, offensive use besides: "retarded" means "slowed down, restrained, held back"; "damn" means "to condemn"; and a "douche" is a type of feminine hygeine product (are those still used nowadays?).

[Lioness]

Carry ear plugs?

Ask them to stop around you because it offends?

Grow cold and distant every time they use certain words?

Personally, there are a few words I can't stand. "Gay", when said in a disparaging manner, really gets on my nerves, and, well, the other ones are better left unsaid. I tend to stiffen up, take a deep breath, and then continue as if nothing happened.

[Syka]

You're definition of douche is actually incorrect, as it references a feminine hygiene product and not...what you said.



You're best bet is to speak with your friends and let them know it's offensive. I have a good friend who is gay, and even he will make a reference like "Man, that's gay." or some such; he just doesn't care. I had another friend who was incensed with the word "chick" to refer to a girl. Me, I use it all the time. I did not do it around her, though, since I respected her as a friend.

If they are your friend, they may not agree, but they should stop using them around you.

Pretty much language evolves, and not always for the better. You can't force a definition change, although you can begin using it in whatever manner you desire and hope it catches on.

[KuReshtin]

'I'm taking it back!' - Randall Graves, Clerks II

[The J Pizzel]

'I'm taking it back!' - Randall Graves, Clerks II

Thanks for taking care of that for me. I was this close to posting something similar.

[Blacky the Blackball]

the D word not Dam the other one that means a stream of water coming out of a womens.....

Discharge?

[Dallas-Dakota]

'I'm taking it back!' - Randall Graves, Clerks II
Was thinking of this too...

[Serpentine]

Who uses a Decanter of Endless Water as a happyfuntime activity toy? :smallconfused:

[Thanatos 51-50]

The words listed are totally valid words, if the colloquial definitions are mildly offensive.
Serp already gave the definitions above, sorry, man, just plug your ears are think about ponies or something.
Fun fact, whenever someone calls somebody a douche, I point out that it means "Shower" in French. This irritates people to no end.

[Kobold-Bard]

I'm not sure what you expected to gain with this thread.

If your friends are using these words and they offend you then talk to them, ask them to try and find an alternative.

[Sholos]

The words listed are totally valid words, if the colloquial definitions are mildly offensive.
Serp already gave the definitions above, sorry, man, just plug your ears are think about ponies or something.
Fun fact, whenever someone calls somebody a douche, I point out that it means "Shower" in French. This irritates people to no end.

"Duschen" is "to shower" in German.

And, yeah, talk to your friends and let them know you don't like those words being used in a derogatory manner. If they're using the words in a manner consistent with their meanings, you should learn to separate the offensive uses from the valid ones.

[ForzaFiori]

"Duschen" is "to shower" in German.

And, yeah, talk to your friends and let them know you don't like those words being used in a derogatory manner. If they're using the words in a manner consistent with their meanings, you should learn to separate the offensive uses from the valid ones.

And its Ducha in spanish. Which is probably where the hygiene product got it's name, since, from what I can tell, since I've never seen one used, could probably be compared to a shower for that particular region.

[Prime32]

I know what "dork" means thanks to Elf Only Inn. :smalltongue:
It's a whale's... body part.

[Kobold-Bard]

I know what "dork" means thanks to Elf Only Inn. :smalltongue:
It's a whale's... body part.

The same body part as a camel's dude? :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

Huh. Well, guess we're never gonna know if our advice worked for him...

[Zeb The Troll]

it means "Shower" in FrenchLikewise in Russian.

[Maximum Zersk]

Huh. Well, guess we're never gonna know if our advice worked for him...

Wait, he wanted advice???

Not to be mean, but I could barely tell what he was saying. :smallconfused:

[Serpentine]

Hrm. A sort of translation, then, of what I thought he was getting at:
Well, a couple of my friends have been using words that I feel are offensive. I think that they should be redefined. The offensive words are basically the "retarded" and "douche". My friends use those words all the time. How would one go about redefining such words, and who agrees with me that it should be done?

[absolmorph]

You're best bet is to speak with your friends and let them know it's offensive. I have a good friend who is gay, and even he will make a reference like "Man, that's gay." or some such; he just doesn't care. I had another friend who was incensed with the word "chick" to refer to a girl. Me, I use it all the time. I did not do it around her, though, since I respected her as a friend.
I rarely use "chick" in conversations that aren't between me and my brother.
When I do, it tends to be just because one of my friends who objects to that usage is around.
... Actually, the only slang I use often is "dood". Yes, dood, not dude.

[Capt Spanner]

The only person I know who uses "gay" in the pejorative is a lesbian.

Words aren't offensive. Ideas and intents are. It doesn't matter what words you use if your intention is to offend.

[Danne]

"Duschen" is "to shower" in German.

"Sich duschen," technically. It's reflexive. </nitpicking>

@OP: A good friend of mine got into a rant about this topic a few years back. He phrased it pretty well when he said, "People of the world! Language is not your bitch."

Words cannot be redefined just because you don't like or don't agree with their meanings. Just because everyone in America has decided that "sushi" means "food involving raw fish" does not change the fact that it actually means "rice balls." Just because you find a particular word offensive doesn't mean you can arbitrarily decide to change its meaning.

That being said, as other people have posted, if you find a word offensive, just ask your friend(s) not to use it. Don't make a fuss about it or anything, just, "Hey, man, I don't like it when people say that. It's not cool." Or some such thing.

[Pyrian]

"Language is not your bitch."Any living language most definitely is ours to modify.


Words cannot be redefined just because you don't like or don't agree with their meanings.A single person has a small effect on language, but that's different from having no effect.


Just because everyone in America has decided that "sushi" means "food involving raw fish" does not change the fact that it actually means "rice balls."This is incorrect. If everybody in a geographic region uses a word to mean a certain thing, then that word DOES mean that thing in that area, regardless of where it came from, what it used to mean, or even what it means in another location or another language.

[Danne]

Any living language most definitely is ours to modify.

Certainly, languages change over time. New definitions get added, connotations change, and what was originally slang can come to be the more accepted definition. But this takes time. It is also significantly different from someone saying, "I don't like the definition of this word, so I'm going to change it just because," which is what I understood the OP to be saying.


A single person has a small effect on language, but that's different from having no effect.

I've always found the "a single raindrop raises the sea" argument to be kind of thin. If the effect is so small that it isn't noticeable, does it really count?

Think about it. The OP can decide that "douche" now means "corn on the cob" all he likes, but that won't stop other people from using it offensively, and it'll just get him funny looks when he announces that he's going to go put a few douches on the grill for dinner.


This is incorrect. If everybody in a geographic region uses a word to mean a certain thing, then that word DOES mean that thing in that area, regardless of where it came from, what it used to mean, or even what it means in another location or another language.

No, it means that the word has acquired an additional, region-specific meaning, not that the original definition has changed. "Sushi" still means "riceballs," and it most likely always will. And for the record, most American/English dictionaries don't define "sushi" as "raw fish," so even then people are using it incorrectly.

Incidentally, most words don't lose their definitions. Even if they acquire a new meaning, the old one is still a correct definition. For example, if you look up "terrible" in the dictionary, "extreme, great" will still be listed, even though these days most people use it to mean "really bad." So even if the OP successfully manages to get everyone in the world to use "douche" to mean "corn on the cob," it will still have a definition that involves a feminine hygiene product.

[Andraste]

Incidentally, most words don't lose their definitions. Even if they acquire a new meaning, the old one is still a correct definition. For example, if you look up "terrible" in the dictionary, "extreme, great" will still be listed, even though these days most people use it to mean "really bad." So even if the OP successfully manages to get everyone in the world to use "douche" to mean "corn on the cob," it will still have a definition that involves a feminine hygiene product.

How a word is used defines a word, not a dictionary. If everyone decides that a word means something else, then it does. "You", for example, used to be used as an plural object form of the second person pronoun, but now it's used for all second person words, replacing thou, thee, and ye.

[Danne]

How a word is used defines a word, not a dictionary. If everyone decides that a word means something else, then it does. "You", for example, used to be used as an plural object form of the second person pronoun, but now it's used for all second person words, replacing thou, thee, and ye.

"You" still is used as a second person plural. English does not have an "ihr" like in German or a "vos" like in Latin; if I want to use a pronoun address a group of people, I would use "you."

It is also now used for all second person pronouns. New meanings have been added, but the old one has not changed.

[Erloas]

New meanings have been added, but the old one has not changed.
But they do loose that old meaning. Maybe not "officially" from the sort of people that like to think they have some control over that sort of stuff, but in a real sense it has. If you use a word in a way that was correct 150 years ago but no one gets what you are trying to say then it really doesn't mean that any more.

If you fail to get a point across because you use terminology the person/people you are talking to don't understand that terminology it is you failing in your task at getting them to understand, not that they failed to understand what you were saying. That is what english teachers always say about writing and the same is true here as well.

As for sushi, there are a lot of words that are in multiple languages and they can mean the same thing, something similar, or something completely different. What it means in one language doesn't make the meaning in other languages less valid, and it doesn't really matter which one had the word first, it just matter which language it is actively being used in.

[Andraste]

"You" still is used as a second person plural. English does not have an "ihr" like in German or a "vos" like in Latin; if I want to use a pronoun address a group of people, I would use "you."

It is also now used for all second person pronouns. New meanings have been added, but the old one has not changed.

What I meant was that it used to only be used as plural, but I guess it's a bad example anyway.

[Pyrian]

If the effect is so small that it isn't noticeable, does it really count?Do you vote?


Just because everyone in America has decided that "sushi" means "food involving raw fish" does not change the fact that it actually means "rice balls."
No, it means that the word has acquired an additional, region-specific meaning, not that the original definition has changed.Perhaps you are attempting a one-man re-definition of "actually" to mean "also". I think it more likely that you have lost your original argument and are trying to pretend you never made it, while "contesting" my statement on grounds that do not contradict what I said at all.


Incidentally, most words don't lose their definitions.Given time, they do. On subject (and unfortunately for the OP), it is most likely to happen with words that become offensive, as people become disinclined to use them for their older, more innocent meanings.

[Danne]

But they do loose that old meaning. Maybe not "officially" from the sort of people that like to think they have some control over that sort of stuff, but in a real sense it has. If you use a word in a way that was correct 150 years ago but no one gets what you are trying to say then it really doesn't mean that any more.

The difference being that I'm a pedantic English major who, for example, will still use "terrible" to mean "awe-inspiring" in certain circumstances, e.g. in poetry, and thus as far as I'm concerned the definition is still perfectly valid. I'm arguing theory, and you're being practical. We're both right, I think.


If you fail to get a point across because you use terminology the person/people you are talking to don't understand that terminology it is you failing in your task at getting them to understand, not that they failed to understand what you were saying. That is what english teachers always say about writing and the same is true here as well.

This is correct. No arguments from me here. It's what I was, in my roundabout, not completely linear way, trying to say to the OP. Words have meanings, and those don't change just because you want them to (and to be fair, they don't go back to "old" meanings just because you want them to, either, and I'd never use "terrible" in actual conversation the way I would in a poem).


As for sushi, there are a lot of words that are in multiple languages and they can mean the same thing, something similar, or something completely different. What it means in one language doesn't make the meaning in other languages less valid, and it doesn't really matter which one had the word first, it just matter which language it is actively being used in.

Merriam-Websters Online defines sushi as "cold rice dressed with vinegar, formed into any of various shapes, and garnished especially with bits of raw seafood or vegetables." Strictly speaking, people who use "sushi" to mean "raw fish" are using the word incorrectly, whether they are speaking Japanese or English. Colloquially, everyone understands what they mean, so the word has in effect acquired a new meaning. But if I say to someone, "I had sushi last night," and s/he says, "Ew, I hate raw fish," I am perfectly justified in raising an eyebrow and saying, "Actually, it was strictly vegetarian."

Edit: @^


Do you vote?

Yes, but I also recognize that my one vote is not going to make the difference if everyone else picks the other side.


Perhaps you are attempting a one-man re-definition of "actually" to mean "also". I think it more likely that you have lost your original argument and are trying to pretend you never made it, while "contesting" my statement on grounds that do not contradict what I said at all.

This is what I get for using my friend's example instead of coming up with me own. :smallamused: You are correct, "also" would probably have been a more accurate word to use.

Also, patronizing much? I'll readily admit that I worded something poorly, but I am offended that you would imply I'm flip-flopping or waffling or whatever it is people accuse those politicians of doing. The accurate definition of "sushi" is "riceballs," and I maintain that people who use it to mean "food involving raw fish" are using it incorrectly. I also recognize that the latter is a colloquial definition and that people say "sushi" and mean "raw fish" all the time, so that essentially it has acquired a new definition.

[Jimorian]

But they do loose that old meaning. {...}

I'm wondering how long it will be before "loose" really does mean "lose". :smallconfused:

And that's not a dig at you, it's an easy typo to make that I've seen people I know who know better make, but there really does also seem to be a large faction who don't even realize this is wrong.

[arguskos]

The accurate definition of "sushi" is "riceballs," and I maintain that people who use it to mean "food involving raw fish" are using it incorrectly. I also recognize that the latter is a colloquial definition and that people say "sushi" and mean "raw fish" all the time, so that essentially it has acquired a new definition.
One of these statements is false, period. Either the first is false (you believe it to be incorrect), or the latter is (new definition), as both cannot be true (if the latter is true, the former cannot be true, etc).

If "wordA" has a new definition that means "XYZ", and it has an established definition that means "XYY", then it now means both "XYZ" and "XYY" as needed, not just "XYY". This seems to be the crux of the differences here, just saying.

[Danne]

One of these statements is false, period. Either the first is false (you believe it to be incorrect), or the latter is (new definition), as both cannot be true (if the latter is true, the former cannot be true, etc).

Not really. I can recognize that a word means X but that people use it to mean Y. When they use it to mean Y, they are using it incorrectly. At the same time, "language" is nothing more than a bunch of sounds that everyone agrees means something, which means that when "everyone" uses X to mean Y, it has acquired a new definition.

Except that, in this particular case, "everyone" doesn't agree that "sushi" means "raw fish," as there are plenty of people who will correct anyone who uses it in that sense. (Including, but certainly not limited to, me, most of my family, pretty much all of my RL friends, a goodly amount of my online friends, my Japanese history professor, a random girl in my German class, and thousands of people on the internet.) So I can use it to mean "raw fish" but someone might correct me on that, making it debateable whether it really has acquired a new definition. So poor choice of example on my part?


If "wordA" has a new definition that means "XYZ", and it has an established definition that means "XYY", then it now means both "XYZ" and "XYY" as needed, not just "XYY". This seems to be the crux of the differences here, just saying.

Agreed!

[arguskos]

Agreed!
...did you read your own words earlier? :smallconfused: You used the phrase "new definition" in conjunction with "raw fish" and "sushi", to explain that sushi has a new definition, that being "raw fish".

Since you agree on the definition issue, where's the debate here? Sushi means two things now: rice balls, and the more colloquial yet still correct new definition of raw fish.

:confused:

Am I just missing something, or is someone messing with me for laughs? I'll admit, that's said to deeply amusing, since I'm terrible at figuring it out, but still.

[Danne]

...did you read your own words earlier? :smallconfused: You used the phrase "new definition" in conjunction with "raw fish" and "sushi", to explain that sushi has a new definition, that being "raw fish".

In conjunction with "essentially," because, as I said, I think it's debateable whether it has a new definition. If Person A uses it to mean "raw fish," and Person B corrects A by saying, "Not all sushi has raw fish in it," is A wrong, or are they both right? (<--Is genuinely asking, not trying to be a brat or make a point.)

Essentially, my side of the debate has gone thusly:

1) I do not agree that "raw fish" is a correct definition, and thus use it as what I assume is a perfectly safe argument.

2) People point out that if everyone agrees with "raw fish," then it's an accurate definition, even if not the original one.

3) This makes me think, because that's technically true, but people still correct each other over "raw fish" as a definition for "sushi." So I attempt to reconcile these two things in a way that makes sense to me, thereby, apparently, confusing everyone. :smallredface:

[arguskos]

Essentially, my side of the debate has gone thusly:

1) I do not agree that "raw fish" is a correct definition, and thus use it as what I assume is a perfectly safe argument.

2) People point out that if everyone agrees with "raw fish," then it's an accurate definition, even if not the original one.

3) This makes me think, because that's technically true, but people still correct each other over "raw fish" as a definition for "sushi." So I attempt reconcile these two things in a way that makes sense to me, thereby, apparently, confusing everyone. :smallredface:
Ok, I understand this, and while I could debate this further, I have a godawful headache, am pissed at a friend right now for being a bastard, didn't have a good day anyways, and am not an English major. I think I'll bow out now. Apologies for leaving this unresponded, but my response would be non-board friendly likely, since I'm in that kind of a mood tonight. :smallfrown:

[Danne]

Ok, I understand this, and while I could debate this further, I have a godawful headache, am pissed at a friend right now for being a bastard, didn't have a good day anyways, and am not an English major. I think I'll bow out now. Apologies for leaving this unresponded, but my response would be non-board friendly likely, since I'm in that kind of a mood tonight. :smallfrown:

Oh dear, I hope you feel better. :smallfrown:

[Lioness]

Sushi=riceballs often containing raw fish

How's that?

[Serpentine]

Sashimi is delicious P: I don't care that I've probably got that definition wrong. It's still delicious.

[Danne]

Sushi=riceballs often containing raw fish

How's that?

...No fair. That's cheating. :smalltongue:

@Serpentine: Sashimi really does refer to raw fish. Or at least raw seafood. Though it's not served on rice usually, right? I've never actually had it...

[Don Julio Anejo]

One thing I want to point out to everyone (most people get this, but a few apparently don't): a language is not physics. In physics G will not suddenly become 15 m/s^2 because some people want it to be so. It's a physical constant and can't change. On the other hand, there are no physical constants in a language. It is what you make it out to be. You can't take grammar rules or word definitions from a Gutenberg edition of "Ye Olde Grammar," apply them to modern language and claim them to be more correct then modern rules or definitions because "it's the way the language really is."

Basically, any word that hasn't been used to mean XYZ and that no-one except a few language majors even know it means XYZ doesn't mean XYZ anymore, despite what Ye Olde Grammar might have to say about that. Crossword puzzles notwithstanding.

[Erloas]

I'm wondering how long it will be before "loose" really does mean "lose". :smallconfused:

And that's not a dig at you, it's an easy typo to make that I've seen people I know who know better make, but there really does also seem to be a large faction who don't even realize this is wrong.

I hate that one because of course its not something a spell checker is going to pick up but it really easy to do accidentally and you won't catch it if you aren't paying close attention. Its also close enough that a lot of times you read over it even if you go back and re-read what you write prior to posting.

[Danne]

I hate that one because of course its not something a spell checker is going to pick up but it really easy to do accidentally and you won't catch it if you aren't paying close attention. Its also close enough that a lot of times you read over it even if you go back and re-read what you write prior to posting.

English (and other languages, I'm sure) is chock full of these. "Two," "to," "too." "Their," "there," "they're." "You're" and "your." "Lose and "loose." "Further" and "farther." Even if you know how to use them right, it's so easy to make a typo and have it go unnoticed because your spellcheck didn't catch it.

It's why one must never trust a spellchecker!

[Andraste]

English (and other languages, I'm sure) is chock full of these. "Two," "to," "too." "Their," "there," "their." "You're" and "your." "Lose and "loose." "Further" and "farther." Even if you know how to use them right, it's so easy to make a typo and have it go unnoticed because your spellcheck didn't catch it.

It's why one must never trust a spellchecker!

Heh, you did it "there" too. Shouldn't one of those theirs be a they're?

[Danne]

Lol. You're right, it should. *fixes*