BBC 4 announces classical music season

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm surprised to see that for the OED, the implication behind this meaning is that it is used 'contemptuously'.

Applied contemptuously to any mode of speech abounding in unfamiliar terms, or peculiar to a particular set of persons, as the language of scholars or philosophers, the terminology of a science or art, or the cant of a class, sect, trade, or profession

Interesting - so, rather than dovers' "the user's sense or expression of being IN a/the group", the dictionary definition suggests that it is really more about the hearer's sense of NOT being in a group; "jargon" expressing their alienation? Which might explain why people sense that somebody is "trying to show off" when that somebody is simply using the vocabulary that they have used throughout their lives, vocabulary which most people they know also use unselfconciously?

[gurnemanz]

I remember writing the word "interpersonal" in a literature essay as a first year undergraduate and having it underlined by the lecturer, who wrote "jargon" in the margin. I probably thought I was being clever to use it and his point was that it was psychology-speak and that "personal" is quite adequate, since the idea of "inter" is already there in the word relationship which followed it. As a young chap I took note of this as an example of what jargon is and did go on to try and avoid using it in future essays.

[jean]

We often notice that words suddenly become more commonly used: curate...

Haven't heard that one for ages...oh I see, you mean the other sort of curate...

(Even if members of the clergy were your subject of conversation, how many parishes these days have the luxury of a curate? Though I believe the Additional Curates Society still exists.)

[doversoul1]

Interesting - so, rather than dovers' "the user's sense or expression of being IN a/the group", the dictionary definition suggests that it is really more about the hearer's sense of NOT being in a group; "jargon" expressing their alienation? Which might explain why people sense that somebody is "trying to show off" when that somebody is simply using the vocabulary that they have used throughout their lives, vocabulary which most people they know also use unselfconciously?

I think it’s the other way round. A word or a phrase is seen as jargon only when it is used outside the group where there is a perfectly ordinary word exists*. It tends to give the hearer an impression that the speaker is showing off (his/her special knowledge or the status). The hearer feels not alienation but annoyance or worse, contempt. And this is why when it is used by a person who is not part of the particular group/profession sounds pretentious.

[ed.] gurnemanz #77

The problem with gig is that many members on this forum are in music profession where the word is simply part of everyday life. I am 99% sure that it was not used to mean a concert of classical music until very recently. Here’s Collins definition:

Informal. A job, esp. a single booking for jazz or pop musicians to play at a concert or club, and the performance itself. (rev. 1994)

[french frank]

Interesting - so [ … ] the dictionary definition suggests that it is really more about the hearer's sense of NOT being in a group; "jargon" expressing their alienation? Which might explain why people sense that somebody is "trying to show off" when that somebody is simply using the vocabulary that they have used throughout their lives, vocabulary which most people they know also use unselfconciously?

Up to a point, Lord C. What I was saying was that dict.def.was quite clear that the term 'jargon' was "contemptuous". I don't think that's true now: I would say that it was a term which began with some kind of restricted group but which may, or may not, become more widely used as it's heard outside that restricted group.

As gurnemanz suggests, there is a tendency for some people consciously or unconsciously to use such terms when, in the given contexts, they are not necessary (or inappropriate/used incorrectly).

I would say that it was less that the terms are not understood than that they are not in general use. But any given term can become less or more frequently used with time for a variety of reasons, not least how useful individuals find it.

It is a decision people might have to make for themselves as to whether a term they use will be familiar (as distinct from comprehensible) to the person or audience addressed. It should not be assumed because 'everyone I know' uses a term, therefore everyone uses it.

[jean]

Everybody who reads the Choir board knows what they mean by Wabbey and the Drome, but not everybody likes it.

[french frank]

Everybody who reads the Choir board knows what they mean by Wabbey and the Drome, but not everybody likes it.

Curiously, there seem to be people who do know what they refer to who object (appropriation of restricted use terms by 'outsiders'?), whereas people like me who had to work out the meanings by their context aren't really bothered. But perhaps I assume too much in thinking there are others 'like me' in this respect)

[doversoul1]

Curiously, there seem to be people who do know what they refer to who object (appropriation of restricted use terms by 'outsiders'?), whereas people like me who had to work out the meanings by their context aren't really bothered. But perhaps I assume too much in thinking there are others 'like me' in this respect)

I don’t think you are (alone in this respect). When I am an onlooker and not the hearer (e.g. when I read the Choir board), I find it quite amusing to see how some people in a group almost go out of their way to use their special terms. Whether the same people use them outside their own group/world is another matter. I will be definitely very annoyed if those words are used when I need or right to understand what it is said or written.

[oddoneout]

I will be definitely very annoyed if those words are used when I need or right to understand what it is said or written.

Which touches on another aspect of the use of jargon - whether those using it actually know what it means. Asking for a translation or explanation can on occasion result in floundering which isn't necessarily to do with difficulty finding a layperson equivalent to specialist shorthand.

[vinteuil]

What I was saying was that dict.def.was quite clear that the term 'jargon' was "contemptuous". I don't think that's true now...

.... certainly for Fowler writing in 1926 the term was pejorative : "jargon is perhaps the most variously applied of a large number of words that are in different senses interchangeable ... the words are : argot, cant, dialect, gibberish, idiom, jargon, lingo, parlance, patois, shop, slang, vernacular. The etymologies, which are indeed several of them unknown, do not throw much light... / ... / jargon is talk that is considered both ugly-sounding & hard to understand : applied especially to (1) the sectional vocabulary of a science, art, class,sect, trade, or profession, full of technical terms (cf. cant, slang) ; (2) hybrid speech of different languages ; (3) the use of long words, circumlocution, & other clumsiness."

.

[jean]

.... certainly for Fowler writing in 1926 the term was pejorative...full of technical terms (cf. cant, slang)...

'...the cant of a class, sect, trade, or profession'

Though the article appears not to have been updated since 1900 when it was written.

Even if we didn't know those dates, the use of cant would be a clear indication!

[LMcD]

It's such FUN starting a thread - one never knows what twists and turns lie in store.....

[french frank]

.... certainly for Fowler writing in 1926 the term was pejorative".

He was writing almost 100 years ago.

Even if we didn't know those dates, the use of cant would be a clear indication!

And I may be wrong . Perhaps the word 'jargon' is still pejorative or "contemptuous". I just don't think of it or use it that way myself! I can understand (well, just about) people being irritated, but I think, to split hairs, they're irritated with people for using it, not with the words. To me, 'jargon' defines objective characteristics of the language.

[jean]

I only meant that while jargon is very much in use, cant has completely disappeared!

[Bryn]

I only meant that while jargon is very much in use, cant has completely disappeared!

In your vocabulary, maybe, but not in mine and that of those I mix with.