pardon this, codger!

[Pafra & Scott Catledge]

Would you characterize those who are seemingly unable to express themselves
without obscenities as either deliberately offensive or merely suffering
from an exteme paucity of vocabulary?
----- Original Message -----
From: <RonButters at AOL.COM>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 1:14 PM
Subject: pardon this, codger!


> Dennis Preston writes:
>
> << [1]. "Offensiveness" is also in both brains,
> sender and receiver. ... [2]. we also should probably try to avoid items
> which will offend others, and  [3]. I assume, and I think rightfully, that
> those who belong to classes which may be offended are the ones who get to
say
> whether items are
> offensvie or not (just like American Poles get to say how to pronounce
their
> names, and speakers of Polish like me who think we know better can go sit
on
> it).>>
>
> Concerning [1], I'd like to make the distinction that dictionaries make:
> "offensive" is only in the mind of the hearer, while "disparaging" is in
the
> mind of the speaker as well. You can find something offensive that I do
not
> intend to be offensive. But if something I say is "disparaging," I
intended
> the offense.
>
> Concerning [2], since when do grammarians concern themselves with "should"
in
> this absolute imperative sense? Is it our business to pass moral judgment
on
> language use? "Should" we also not split infinitives? Nah! Speakers
certainly
> "should" try not to use terms that others will find offensive--except when
> they decide that they want to BE offensive (i.e., unless they chose to say
> disparaging things). As Dennis knows (because he has studied discourse
> analysis and conversational interaction), most people most of the time in
> fact DO go to great lengths to avoid giving conversational offense. That
is,
> we normally DO "try to avoid items which will offend others"--that is
normal
> linguistic behavior. But what we "should" do is outside the scope of
> linguistics.
>
> Concerning [3], it just ain't that simple. Whether, say, "Hoosier" or
> "cornhusker" is taken as offensive depends a lot on context: who is doing
the
> talking, what are the circumstances, and who is deciding whether something
is
> offensive or not? Even the worst ethnic slur in America (the "N" word) can
be
> uttered without giving offense. Some homosexuals are offended by "queer,"
> some are offended if one doesn't use it. Some "Hispanics" don't like that
> term, some don't like "Latino." I seriously doubt that many people are
> offended if a Polish name is not pronounced to their liking--though they
may
> be annoyed.
>
> --Ron Butters [a faggot who will be grumpy if Dennis does not pronounce my
> surname Boo-TEHRZ from now on]