This thread is now so far OFF TOPIC that it's time for it to go to private e-mail. Thanks.
On Saturday 13 January 2007 18:55, Rik Tindall wrote: > Kerry Mayes wrote: > > On 13/01/07, Rik Tindall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >>> Parent: "bedtime now" > >> >> >>> Child: "thats gay" > >> > >> In other words: "no, i needn't respect you" > > > > Rather: "I don't like that." (Since when has a child expressing > > their preferences, necessarily been disrespectful?) > > = a negative. > > As stated, "no argument" between all three of our readings actually. > > 'Gay' = happy = positive > > Except that use sounds naff, so who cares how it's morphed? Not me. > > >> Says he who is willing to believe petrol-breathing, functional > >> illiterates. > > > > Who's being disrespectful now? My sources include my children and > > niece, none of whom are petrol-breathing, nor illiterate. > > Trace upwards the chain of useage, the chain of youngster's respect, > for the behavioural modelling source, is what I meant. The word did > not come from you. > > But you're right, 'youth of today' is due equal respect. > > >> > - yes, 'gay' (in this context) has been > >> > negativised, but it has also lost all association with > >> > homosexuality. > >> > >> Maybe. > > > > Except, of course, in the mind of the hearer. The illogic quote: > > > > "When I use a word, it means exactly what I intend it to mean, no > > more, no less." > > — Humpty Dumpty to Alice, Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis > > Carroll > > > > When words are redefined, the failure in communication is the fault > > of both sides. > > In the (teen) movie I cited, the only possibly neutral use of 'gay' > was the first use appearing. Thereafter the _older_kids_ (adult > stars) flew off on a sojourning tangent where there was no question > that their hetero status was being defended against the former > meaning. > > > Kerry. > > But me senses semantic contest here. Not so sure that it's useful. > > Good chatting with you tho. > > Cheers
