Racial epithet makes news

[Jonathan Lighter]

HDAS originally tried to get around many of these labeling problems by
employing the warning label "vulgar" for "offensive" sexual and scatological
terms and ethnic epithets. The implication, to me, was that such usages
should be avoided in reasonably civil discourse because they were associated
with the usage of lowbrows and/or bigots.

The folks at Random House, however, felt that "vulgar" sounded antiquated
and snobbish and seemed to criticize too overtly the users of such terms.
(Like they shouldn't be criticized.)

The final compromise was on the impeccably objective "usu. [or "often"]
considered offensive," which allows you to hate the sin but love the
sinner.

"Vulgar," however, has the virtue of suggesting only that the habitual user
belongs to an unrefined, vaguely defined lumpenproletariat.  "Offensive,"
OTOH, encourages the idea that an educated person is expected to take
offense and that the speaker is probably trying to offend, whatever the
context.

The relative merits of such labels are endlessly debatable. But I still
prefer "vulgar."
JL
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Charles C Doyle <cdoyle at uga.edu> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Charles C Doyle <cdoyle at UGA.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: Racial epithet makes news
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A problem with our discussion--and with dictionary entries--is the
> confusion of spelling with pronunciation.  Surely the (predictable)
> pronunciation variant [Inj at n] existed well before the spelling "Injun"
> began appearing in printed documents.  But when did the pronunciation [Inj at n]
> become a distinguishable lexeme--or did the lexeme "Injun" arise from
> writers' attempt at "dialect" spelling?
>
> It's worth noting that Chairman Steele uttered the phrase; he didn’t write
> it!  Does [Inj at n] possibly still occur as a pronunciation of the word
> "Indian"?  Would "Honest Indian" be less offensive than "Honest Injun" (as
> either spelled or pronounced)?
>
> As for the somewhat analogous "Nigra":  The OED labels the form "usually
> offensive."  As I commented years and years ago in _American Speech_, the
> label is problematical, ambiguous.  Does the "offense" inhere in the effect
> or in the intent of what has been a standard (phonologically regular)
> pronunciation of the word "Negro"?  One thing that is certainly offensive is
> the intent of the SPELLING of the word to mark a speaker as racist,
> low-class, or stupid for his employment of the (largely regional)
> pronunciation.
>
> --Charlie
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



-- 
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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