Racial epithet makes news

[Dan Goncharoff]

When I watch movie previews, I usually get a chuckle out of the
explanation provided for the rating of the preview. I have noticed that
one of the explanations is "language", sans modifier. It looks funny
when written.

DanG

On 7/8/2010 1:39 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society<ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter<wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: Racial epithet makes news
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> HDAS originally tried to get around many of these labeling problems by
> employing the warning label "vulgar" for "offensive" sexual and scatologica=
> l
> terms and ethnic epithets. The implication, to me, was that such usages
> should be avoided in reasonably civil discourse because they were associate=
> d
> 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 [In=
>>
> j 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=92t wr=
>>
> ite
>
>> it!  Does [Inj at n] possibly still occur as a pronunciation of the word
>> "Indian"?  Would "Honest Indian" be less offensive than "Honest Injun" (a=
>>
> s
>
>> 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 effe=
>>
> ct
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --=20
> "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
>
>

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