Quote:
Originally Posted by Notjohn
> the phrase 'some gay young men' in the 21st century means something quite different than when it was written in the 17th or18th centuries.
One needn't go back that far!
|
I freely admit that I get seriously annoyed about this stuff. I try not to be insensitive, I do--but I don't think that Film Noir movies should have "dame," "broad," etc., removed from them, either, or the even less-attractive terms used in the book versions of many of those films. ("Twist" and, shall we say, downhill from there?)
For example, JK Rowling's other series, the three books about the PI and his trusty assistant, I forget what they're called, some folks were upset because cigs are referred to as
fags therein, but this still seems to be a piece of vernacular that's commonplace in the UK, PC-edness or not. Ditto
gay apparel and the like--a
perfectly good word, that was more than serviceable, and now it's fallen into disuse and disrepair, due to the appropriation of it by a group of folks in society. I don't care if it's appropriated, but I
do care if that means I can't use it in its original meaning.
I realize that language is a living thing. Stuff changes, as they say. For example, the abuse and misuse of "could care less" and (this one makes me insane) "begs the question" clearly have re-entered the common usage meaning either the opposite of their original sense (could care less) or something wholly incorrect (begs the question) and I guess those of us that know better just have to live with it--but when I hear talking heads on the TV abuse begs the question, it makes me want to scream.
I guess it's much of a thing. (sigh).
Hitch