pardon this, codger!

[Dennis R. Preston]

Yeah, but in this case not a good trick. I wondered if anybody knew
something better than "possibly."

dInIs (who can make up etymologies as good as dictionaries not especially
well-known for etymologies anyway)

>Old nasty trick : the Meriam Webster Dictionary.
>
>codger: possibly an alteration of cadger
>cadger: back-formation from Scots cadger carrier, huckster, from Middle
>English cadgear
>
>Regards, Alexey
>
>
>
>On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Dennis R. Preston wrote:
>
>> First, Ron is exactly right to distinguish intentions (although I ain't
>> much for using the official lexicon to support the distinction; let's just
>> make the words up as we go along; that way we'll be real scientists with
>> our own vocabulary). An old codger, for example, who thinks that "colored
>> people" is a polite way to refer to African-Americans may be considered
>> offensive but he intends not to disparage, to use Ron's terms.
>>
>> I still think he should get with the program, and I am prepared to defend
>> "should" in applied linguistic terms in spite of Ron's #2. This does not
>> mean that I will refuse to study racist, sexist, homophobic language use,
>> and I can do so quite straightforwardly, but I cannot conceive of
>> responsible study in these areas (quite aside from the study of "internal"
>> linguistic factors) as being without value-laden implications.
>>
>> Last, of course Ron is correct in addressing content. Words are not
>> offesnive; uses of them are, and who says what to whom (when, were,
>> etc....) is as important in these areas as in any other area of
>> sociologically-sensitive linguistic investigation. I am back this summer
>> from the Hungarian-side of my family's reunion, and "Hunkey" was probably
>> the most frequently used non-function word lexical item. We were all
>> Hunkies (by blood or marriage), and nobody got pissed off. Woe to you
>> non-Hunkies if you try it!
>>
>> dInIs (also half hillbilly and also not a good choice to use on him if you
>> ain't one)
>>
>> PS: OK buhTEHRZ?
>>
>> PPS: What's the etymology of codger? I know that of geezer, but not codger.
>> My students say I am one or the other, but I forget which.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>MIME-Version: 1.0
>> >>Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:14:17 EDT
>> >>Reply-To: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> >>Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> >>From: RonButters at AOL.COM
>> >>Subject:      pardon this, codger!
>> >>To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>> >>
>> >>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]
>> >>
>>
>> Dennis R. Preston
>> Professor of Linguistics
>> Department of Linguistics and Languages
>> Michigan State University
>> East Lansing MI 48824-1027 USA
>> preston at pilot.msu.edu
>> Office: (517)353-0740
>> Fax: (517)432-2736
>>

Dennis R. Preston
Professor of Linguistics
Department of Linguistics and Languages
Michigan State University
East Lansing MI 48824-1027 USA
preston at pilot.msu.edu
Office: (517)353-0740
Fax: (517)432-2736