is "dirty blonde" depreciative?

[Joel S. Berson]

At 3/26/2012 10:18 AM, Amy West wrote:
>On 3/26/12 12:02 AM, Automatic digest processor wrote:
>>Date:    Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:23:29 -0400
>>From:    Laurence Horn<laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
>>Subject: Re: is "dirty blonde" depreciative?
>>
>>Ah, but I took "dirty blonde" to be a natural color (as natural as
>>blonde, and thus capable of someone's dyeing for it as well), and
>>thereby differing from "bottle blonde", which is by
>>definition*not*  a natural color (unless you're a bottle).
>>
>>LH
>>
>>On Mar 25, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>>
>>> >  Along George's line, I take "dirty blonde" as someone (or the hair of
>>> >  someone) who has not done a good job of dyeing.  So maybe the OED
>>> >  definition needs to clarify that it's depreciative of the
>>> hair, not the person?
>>> >
>>> >  Joel
>>> >
>
>Again, I hate to send just a concurring message, but I very much am of
>the same opinion as Prof. Horn. My hair is a natural dirty blonde that
>has never been near hair dye. (Joel, I will have to ask for satisfaction
>for that insult. :-) )
>
>But there we go: that's evidence of a depreciative aspect for some
>speakers re: the color.
>
>--
>---Amy West

I will apologize to Amy's hair at my earliest opportunity, and
suggest that to avoid uncomfortable encounters that in the future it
call itself "(now more) brownish-blonde".

Joel

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