Gay marriage thread

[MrGongGong]

No, the compilers are simply noting that the word has recently been hi-jacked by some to mean something different

Like the "modern" use of the word "Grape" in "Grape Lane" you mean ?

Interesting that you seem to think that all changes of language over time constitute "hi-jacking"
so I guess Shakespeare is off the menu as well then ?

give up Scotty
you won't win on linguistics as there are many here who really "know their shit" (as one might say in contemporary parlance )

[Richard Barrett]

hi-jacked by some to mean something different and there are therefore 'moves' towards a change of meaning. The meaning of the word remains the same.

So if I were to call you "silly", would I mean "harmless" or "pitiable" (its meaning in the 13th century), or "weak" (14th century), or "feeble in mind, lacking in reason, foolish" (which it means as a result of "hijacking" in the 16th century)?

Or all of the above?

[scottycelt]

I googled married couple too, and a little further down the page I got this:

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/imag.../08/351819.jpg

Yes, apparently they are both from Memphis and had to go to Washington DC to get 'married' in a huge blaze of publicity to make their point.

Good for them. I think they look more like twin brothers than a married couple but maybe I'm just seeing things.

[jean]

Yes, apparently they are both from Memphis and had to go to Washington DC to get 'married'...

You don't mean 'married', you mean married.

[MrGongGong]

You don't mean 'married', you mean married.

maybe 'god' told them to do it ?

[scottycelt]

So if I were to call you "silly", would I mean "harmless" or "pitiable" (its meaning in the 13th century), or "weak" (14th century), or "feeble in mind, lacking in reason, foolish" (which it means as a result of "hijacking" in the 16th century)?

Or all of the above?

You can call me whatever you like, pal ...

I'll just change 'weak' to mean 'strong'. 'silly' to mean 'sound' and 'feeble in mind, lacking in reason, foolish' to mean 'strong-willed, reasoned, sensible' and then we'll all have equality and everyone will live happily ever after, eh?

Right ... time to go!

[Flosshilde]

No, the compilers are simply noting that the word has recently been hi-jacked

No, they are noting that words change their meaning.


Scotty, you really are a priceless idiot.You seem to have a deep-seated fear of words changing their meaning. If that's what a Jesuit education does it's a very poor one. There are many examples - try 'symphony'.

[Julien Sorel]

Pejoration - the process whereby a word's meaning degenerates or downgrades. That's what happened to "silly" which started off meaning something almost holy (as in a Holy Innocent) and now means daft, frivolous, foolish (the word fool has an interesting history http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fool).

Over the centuries there have been many - for me, in context, fascinating, fruitful, resonant, beautiful - theories of language as somehow embodying that which they represent; or corresponding to it mystically, or encoding it, or by onomatopœia conjuring a thing or a creature or a quality of a thing or a creature. Poetically these have always been and remain resources that can change perception, magic the ordinary, transform, protest against false realities etc. There have also been theories that certain languages (like Hebrew) are innately divine; and theories that languages embody the emotional and poetic and spiritual and practical and everything else characteristics of a people. In German Romanticism these are not sinister in the ways 'race' and 'racial characteristics' or volk later became, and to conflate the two is dangerous (though to separate them completely is, too). Language as the Genius of a People.

Dictionaries are different. They record use. You (scottycelt) know what marriage means as if what you know marriage to mean is inherent in, innate to, that word. But scientific lexicography has nothing to do with such ideas. Everyone doesn't use marriage exclusively in the sense you think is the correct sense, and since enough people now use it in a way you disapprove of to make the lexicographers record that use that use is, lexicographically, correct. You don't have to accept it. But your objections have nothing to do with meaning in a general sense; they have to do with meaning as determined by a theory of what constitutes a proper marriage.

In other words, a dictionary is no use to you if you want it to reflect what you see as obvious, unchanging meaning.

[Flosshilde]

Haven't heard that argument for ages!

SYDNEY, Tuesday: In a move confirming the worst fears of conservatives, representatives of the gay community today announced a list of words they intend to hijack over the next five years.

“We’re pretty happy with what we’ve done to ‘gay’,” a spokesman said joyously...

"Gays for Removing Innocence from the English Language" (GRIEL - the Holy GRIEL, perhaps?). Where can I join

[Richard Barrett]

fascinating, fruitful, resonant, beautiful

... in other words everything that the present state of this discussion is not! The way that words change their meaning is also a beautiful thing, and evidence that human society is a dynamic phenomenon, which in turn suggests that it could evolve into something more just and equal. (Which is what Jesus would presumably have wanted, unless I'm grossly misinterpreting the statements attributed to him.) There is of course a school of thought that contends that human beings have "always been the same" and that this is some sort of consolatory idea (I find it a frightening idea, but on the other hand it's demonstrably untrue), and therefore that any change, including changes in the meanings of words, is to be resisted, and in extreme cases like scottycelt, denied altogether. What might seem like trivial semantic quibbling actually goes to the heart of one's view of humanity as either petrified (in at least two senses!) or capable of shaping its own future.

[Pabmusic]

...There is of course a school of thought that contends that human beings have "always been the same" and that this is some sort of consolatory idea (I find it a frightening idea, but on the other hand it's demonstrably untrue), and therefore that any change, including changes in the meanings of words, is to be resisted, and in extreme cases like scottycelt, denied altogether. What might seem like trivial semantic quibbling actually goes to the heart of one's view of humanity as either petrified (in at least two senses!) or capable of shaping its own future.

Oh! How true!

As I've said a few times, the only meaningful definition of marriage is that approved by Parliament. Not the Catholic Church, the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Moslems, the Hindus or the Zoroastrians. Currently, for England and Wales, that is the (entirely secular) Marriage Act of 1836 (there is an equivalent for Scotland and NI). Any marriage that does not conform with it is not legal in the UK, be it Catholic, Anglican (etc). If Parliament wishes to alter its definition - as it seems to be prepared to - that will become the new definition of marriage, whatever is in any dictionary that one can find.

[amateur51]

Oh good grief; where do you want to start?

"Deeply heterosexist" comes straight from the Guardian/Dave Spart/70s school of reactionary feminist twaddle.

And "I defend the right of people to make the misguided choice to get married, if that is what they wish"...is one of the most patronising and condescending things I've ever read.

I really thought the world had managed to move on from such rubbish.

Most sensible people have.

Ah not so much an explanation as a solipsistic rant.

Fairy nuff

[amateur51]

I don't consult Blogs, I consult Dictionaries. Sorry if that's caused any offence.

We are not discussing the terms and conditions of Marriage simply the meaning of the word.

When we go to a business meeting and are told to wear a suit we reach for a jacket and trousers.

We don't arrive at the meeting wearing two jackets without trousers or a couple of pairs of trousers without a jacket and claim it's a suit. A suit means the combination of a jacket and trousers. Nothing else.

Same with Marriage. It means the combination of a Man and a Woman.

If Homosexuals are unhappy with the term CPs they can change it to something else ... but not Marriage.

Not a wise move scotty cos we naughty dykes and faggots have an unseemly but highly successful habit of taking words and altering their meaning through usage. We are very likely to take up your challenge, which will result in even more dictionary changes and then where will you be?

[amateur51]

Well, you obviously know what a suit is

What's a suite?




Capitalised now, are we? Has he put us in quotes yet?


I sense that scotty feels that he's clinging on to the edge of a cliff by his fingertips, and it's rapidly crumbling.

With Baldrick hanging on to his feet shouting "I think it's all going terribly well!"

[Mr Pee]

With Baldrick hanging on to his feet shouting "I think it's all going terribly well!"

It amazes me that you have the hypocrisy to accuse others of not engaging with a debate, and yet most of your posts consist of little more than lame "jokes" which I suspect only you and your little clique of chums find amusing.