Dyslexia and English Orthography was "surprise"

[Mark Mandel]

Larry wrote, replying to Gerald Walton [full context below]:

> Or would these all be acceptable to cite because invoking them would involve not *using* but *mentioning* obscene words?

I think so. He and Scot(?) both DID say "use", and all your examples
are mentions. The difference, of course, is enormous. In explaining it
to non-linguists in the context of taboo words, I've successfully used
the analogy of a forensic chemist who WORKS WITH poisons and toxins
all the time, but never USES them on himself or others.

  forensic chemistry : work with :: linguistics : mention

m a m

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu> wrote:
>
> At 5:11 PM -0600 2/21/09, Gerald Walton wrote [quoting Scot LaFaive??]:
> >  > So I'm wondering why so many academics enjoy using obscene or scatalogical
> >>  terms in these "scholarly" postings. I'm wondering if those who ply their
> >>  trade in classrooms & libraries feel like they need to demonstrate that
> >>  they are really pretty edgy.
> >
> >I had a forty-year career in university teaching and administration.
> >I didn't use obscenity in the classroom or elsewhere simply because,
> >unlike Scot, I never felt that I needed to use obscene words as
> >"exactly the word[s] necessary for a given thought." I, however, am
> >not bothered in the least if others use it. I agree that "we are all
> >mature enough to handle the occasional
> >obscenity." In my view, far fewer obscene or scatalogical words are
> >used in classrooms and libraries than are used in other parts of our world.
> >Gerald
>
> Doesn't it depend on what you're teaching?   I teach a class in words
> and word-formation, and would find it extremely difficult discussing
> infixing without going into the rules for "fuckin" insertion, which
> have been described extensively in the professional literature (cf.
> McCawley on where you can shove infixes) and constitute a superb
> illustration of tacit rule-learning (given that our parents and
> teachers never taught us that while "Massa-fuckin-chusetts" is
> well-formed, we should never say "Connecti-fuckin-cut", because of
> the metrical constraints we'd be violating).  Nor am I prepared to
> eliminate "FUCK" ('for unlawful carnal knowledge', 'fornication under
> consent of the king', etc. etc.) from the inventory of faux acronyms
> when I'm discussing the byways of etymythology just because of the
> obscenity involved.  Or when you're talking about the dialect
> interference between British and U.S. English, should we avoid
> mentioning "pissed" ('angry' vs. 'drunk') along with "knocked up"?
> And should I eliminate discussing the loss of "cock" and "ass" from
> American English in favor of "rooster" and "donkey" as instance of
> taboo avoidance, following Bloomfield (1933)?  Or maybe just not
> mention taboo avoidance as a factor in lexical change?  Or would
> these all be acceptable to cite because invoking them would involve
> not *using* but *mentioning* obscene words?
>
> LH

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org