"baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
Wilson Gray
hwgray at GMAIL.COM
Thu May 1 13:49:52 UTC 2008
What's strange is the attempt to put a semantic restriction on the
meaning of a slang term, when the meaning of a slang term is nothing,
if not labile. For, example, back in the day, "skank" said nothing
about a woman's personal morality. It was all about her socio-economic
status and physical attractiveness. A "skank" was merely an
unattractive girl from the projects or from the poor side of the
(black) part of town.
There's also "skag," with the same meaning as "skank," while
simultaneously meaning "heroin."
Adding the inappropriate and invalid _"(in most cases)"_, which no one
can reasonably claim to know to be true, while leaving out the valid
and appropriate "... not _necessarily_ his wife ..." is off the wall,
to coin a phrase.
How is it that the work that aims to be the final arbiter of meaning
in English just casually tosses in a piece of unproved, well,
bullshit, apparently for the mere hell of it? I assume that the OED's
definition of "baby daddy" has the same addendum, given that the only
distinction between the two is a reversal of sexual specificity.
-Wilson
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster: Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> Subject: Re: "baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 9:43 AM -0400 4/29/08, Wilson Gray wrote:
> >"... [I]f you're the exclusive partner (possibly but not
> > necessarily the husband) of said baby mama and if
> > she is (at least by presumption) yours, you
> > wouldn't refer to her as your baby mama, even
> > though she technically is."
> >
> >You wouldn't? That's news to me. Who did the research that supports
> >this claim and where can I find it?
> >
> >-Wilson
>
> Well I wouldn't use it whether or not she is, since it's not part of
> my active lexicon. What I was trying to characterize here is the
> dialect of those who conformed to the claim implicit in the OED
> definition, which is that it's restricted to those outside of
> exclusive sexual relationships; my claim was that any such
> restriction is pragmatic and not semantic in nature. I agree that
> the female parent (biological parent? gestational parent?) of one's
> child(-to-be) is one's baby mama, but I was assuming that at least
> for some men in the traditional version of this situation, she
> wouldn't be so referred to, and that the OED gloss reflects their
> analysis of this restriction.
>
> LH
>
> >
> >On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu> wrote:
> >> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> >>-----------------------
> >> Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >> Poster: Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> >> Subject: Re: "baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
> >>
> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> At 12:22 AM -0400 4/29/08, Wilson Gray wrote:
> >> >What is the source of the OED's assertion: "... _not (in most cases)_
> >> >his current or exclusive partner"?
> >> >
> >> >-Wilson
> >>
> >> I would guess they're trying to build in the
> >> pragmatics; semantically, one's baby mama is the
> >> mother of one's baby/child/child-to-be. But if
> >> you're the exclusive partner (possibly but not
> >> necessarily the husband) of said baby mama and if
> >> she is (at least by presumption) yours, you
> >> wouldn't refer to her as your baby mama, even
> >> though she technically is. (Just as "partner"
> >> generally, but not definitionally, excludes
> >> "spouse", rather than the way "fiance(e)"
> >> semantically excludes "spouse".) So I'd think
> >> the sense of the phrase is "not usually used
> >> for..."
> >>
> >> LH
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Mark Mandel <thnidu at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> ---------------------- Information from the
> >> >>mail header -----------------------
> >> >> Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >> >> Poster: Mark Mandel <thnidu at GMAIL.COM>
> >> >> Subject: "baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
> >> >>
> >>
> >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> from my nephew, an exchange with an editor (or something) at
> >>MSNBC.COM:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>
> >> >> From: $NEPHEW
> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:08 AM
> >> >> To: Jonel Aleccia
> >> >> Subject: poor choice of headlines?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Baby mamas who eat better deliver more boys" (from
> >> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24262928/)
> >> >>
> >> >> While I understand that blogs provide a less formal forum for writers,
> >> >> this headline (or sub-head?) is from what appears to be a regular
> >> >> article appearing in msnbc.com's health section. That being said, I
> >> >> must ask who chose this sub-head and why it was considered
> >> >> appropriate? For one, slang, unless it is a direct part of the main
> >> >> storyline, should rarely, if ever, be used in research reviews. And
> >> >> second, this slang isn't even appropriate for the research in
> >> >> question, as it (the slang) refers to single mothers who don't know
> >> >> the identity of their baby's father. This review did not indicate
> >> >> that this research focused on this demographic.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can you provide any insight into this?
> > > >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> ===
> >> >>
> >> >> From: Jonel Aleccia [mailto:JoNel.Aleccia at msnbc.com]
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear Mr. $LASTNAME,
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for your note. While the reporters and editors here disagree
> >> >> with your idea that slang shouldn't be used in connection with a
> >> >> research report, we were convinced to change the sub-head by your
> >> >> argument that it refers to single mothers. After checking, we find
> >> >> you're right. Thanks for taking the time to point that out.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best,
> >> >>
> >> >> JoNel Aleccia
> >> >>
> >> >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >> >>
> >> >> My nephew comments: "Score one for the literate among us "
> >> >>
> >> >> While there's disagreement over its stylistic appropriateness, and
> >> >> he's somewhat off on the definition of the term*, he was right about
> >> >> its semantic appropriateness.
> >> >>
> >> >> * "the mother of a man's child, who is not his wife nor (in most
> >> >> cases) his current or exclusive partner" -- OED; also quoted in
> >> >> Wikipedia.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Mark Mandel
> >> >>
> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
> >> >come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
> >> >-----
> >> > -Sam'l Clemens
> >> >
> >> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
> >come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
> >-----
> > -Sam'l Clemens
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
--
All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
-----
-Sam'l Clemens
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l
mailing list