gbarrett at WORLDNEWYORK.ORG
Sat Feb 7 19:28:30 UTC 2004
It's funny you should ask that. Not an hour ago, I sent a message to
Dan Savage, inquiring as to whether he had seen any evidence of the
word spreading "in the wild," without specific references to his
campaign, to his column, or without having to self-consciously define
In his column he has printed letters recounting anecdotes "proving" the
success of the word, but it's not clear that those mentioned did not
get the word from the same two sources. They all read as if the word is
being discussed as a novelty or curiosity.
The in-group using this word, in my opinion, isn't people who might
have a use for it, but people who merely desire to spread it. The
super-shedder here is Savage's column, and, by extension, the campaign.
In the database and Internet searches I have done--and admittedly, it
is time-consuming and difficult to search for, given all the material
related to the Senator himself--I have found exactly no uses of the new
"santorum" which are not self-conscious and/or included merely to
propagate the word.
So I, too, would be interested in any solid evidence that this word has
a life beyond the campaign.
On Feb 7, 2004, at 14:08, Michael Newman wrote:
> At the risk of unscientifically promoting the
> very effort I am reporting about, I wonder how
> many subscribers are aware of the campaign to
> promote the use of the word "santorum" to refer
> Is this kind of lexicological campaign
> unprecedented? There are obvious differences
> between this effort and the campaign against
> Charles Boycott or the way that Capt. Lynch got
> his name into the lexicon.
More information about the Ads-l