Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Words of the feather, words of the sword...

analog · 09-21-2005, 10:14 PM

Language serves as a medium for communication. By nature, it expands to accomodate new words, naturally shifting the vernacular, and sloughs off some words into obsolescence, all without our interference.

Words carry meaning because we give them meaning. Words can harm because we "allow" them to, but the real reason words can harm is because we give them meaning, and honor their meaning implicitly. Cuss words are no more a party to this than any other word.

Slang is the best example of what I mean, as one day a perfectly normal word can take on a different, often negative, meaning. Take pussy, for example. Starts as a cat's name, is referenced as a nickname for a vagina, and now it's a slang term for a wimp, a wuss, someone weak. Pussy is mean because we give it that value, and over a period of time and use, that value is now intrinsic to it, and we automatically assign that value to it on a subconscious level when we hear it.

Take our monetary system for another example. Money is worthless. Without the government that prints it, it's paper with a dead president on it. It has value because we've given it value. We now recognize each bill and their relative assigned value to purchase goods and services. The concept of assigning value is the same.

The point is, if you choose to personally unassign the value of a word for yourself, that's all well and good for you- but the common meaning will persist, no matter what, until its time has come to be replaced or kicked out.

(side note: I just read 1984 and I'm pretty much positive the whole point of newspeak was orwell showing the government trying that much harder to remove individuality and personality from everything, including everyday speech. While good, plusgood, and doubleplusgood may be ok for good, great, and awesome, that is hardly an example of the intent of the language. The language was specifically created and continually tweaked to remove redundancies from the language. This could only serve to hinder communication, which was another component of the point of the Newspeak... just another form of control through denial of personality..

09-21-2005, 10:14 PM	#29 (permalink)
analog Banned	Language serves as a medium for communication. By nature, it expands to accomodate new words, naturally shifting the vernacular, and sloughs off some words into obsolescence, all without our interference. Words carry meaning because we give them meaning. Words can harm because we "allow" them to, but the real reason words can harm is because we give them meaning, and honor their meaning implicitly. Cuss words are no more a party to this than any other word. Slang is the best example of what I mean, as one day a perfectly normal word can take on a different, often negative, meaning. Take pussy, for example. Starts as a cat's name, is referenced as a nickname for a vagina, and now it's a slang term for a wimp, a wuss, someone weak. Pussy is mean because we give it that value, and over a period of time and use, that value is now intrinsic to it, and we automatically assign that value to it on a subconscious level when we hear it. Take our monetary system for another example. Money is worthless. Without the government that prints it, it's paper with a dead president on it. It has value because we've given it value. We now recognize each bill and their relative assigned value to purchase goods and services. The concept of assigning value is the same. The point is, if you choose to personally unassign the value of a word for yourself, that's all well and good for you- but the common meaning will persist, no matter what, until its time has come to be replaced or kicked out. (side note: I just read 1984 and I'm pretty much positive the whole point of newspeak was orwell showing the government trying that much harder to remove individuality and personality from everything, including everyday speech. While good, plusgood, and doubleplusgood may be ok for good, great, and awesome, that is hardly an example of the intent of the language. The language was specifically created and continually tweaked to remove redundancies from the language. This could only serve to hinder communication, which was another component of the point of the Newspeak... just another form of control through denial of personality..