>>"as it reveals his incompetence to refute the substance of what I wrote in reply to his original response to Calonlan"

Incompetent or not, the fact remains that, despite all of Kyberean’s desperate verbal gymnastics, homophobia is indeed a word which conveys meaning, nor is the meaning of this word in any way invalidated by its root derivations, which have no bearing whatsoever on its usage.

As F. A. Philbrick observed in Language and the Law (1951), rep. pp. 95-109 A Short Unit on General Semantics, ed. Louis Glorfeld, (1969):

“…One fallacy prevalent among the learned is that the ‘true’ meaning of a word can be discovered from the derivation, and that the word radical, for instance, “really means” someone who wants to get to the root of things. An amusing exploitation of the fallacy is quoted by Wellman in The Art of Cross Examination. A young man who had been injured in a railroad accident was examined by a railroad doctor, who declared that the injury to his nervous system was merely hysterical, and would probably disappear in a short time. The cross examination of the doctor by the patient’s counsel, Benjamin F. Butler, is recorded as follows in Butler’s autobiography:

Mr. Butler: Do I understand that you think this condition of my client wholly hysterical?
Witness: Yes, sir; undoubtedly.
Mr. Butler: And therefore won’t last long?
Witness: No sir; not likely to.
Mr. Butler: Well, doctor, let us see; is not the disease called hysteria and its effects hysterics; and isn’t it true that hysteria, hysterics, hysterical, all come from the Greek word ‘nstera?
Witness: It may be.
Mr. Butler: Don’t say it may, doctor; isn’t it? Isn’t an exact translation of the Greek word ‘nstera the English word “womb”?
Witness: You are right, sir.
Mr. Butler: Well, doctor, this morning when you examined this young man here, did you find that he had a womb? I was not aware of it before, but I will have him examined over again and see if I can find it. That is all, doctor; you may step down.”

This same obfuscation is what Kyberean is attempting to perpetrate here. As mathematician and scientist Anatol Rapoport observed, “Words do have a variety of sometimes unrelated meanings, and these are not inherent in the words themselves but in their usage.”

>>"Jojo Lapin X: As always, I appreciate your thought-provoking replies. If only we could agree about something! *laughs*"

Laughs maniacally?

Keep milking the bull, Gavin. It should be obvious to all who between us is "desperate" here. A little reinforcement of that fact never hurts, though, and is at least good for a laugh.

Mr Callaghan's quote is very much to the point.

Regarding the fact that the contemporary world understands what is meant by "Homophobia" -- yes it does, but only because the word was invented in the realm of psuedoscience - psychology - and is only understood as a pejorative, not as a scientifically intelligible term - its development was based on ignorance of the use of scientific language in which, as in bioloty for existence, the term based on Greek roots must serve as a universally understood descriptive term - suggested reading: Dr. Tana Dinee's excellent, "Manufacturing Victims" - I just erased a great deal more I thought of adding, but have neither time nor inclination to pursue a discussion which, I am sure, if it could be held in person in a congenial atmosphere with several varieties of convivial libations available, would have a happy and pleasant, and mutually satisfying outcome, but might otherwise become acerbic - who needs that - i am looking down the throat of a hurricne at the moment.

When such pronouncements as Gavin's are interspersed with ad hominem attacks, I really do not care whether they are "to the point", or not. Of course, in this case (and as usual), his quotation is not to the point, since I do not argue that a word's meaning and usage should be completely restricted to its etymological origins. I merely suggest that it have at least some logical relationship to those origins. Homophobia simply does not have this sort of relationship to its etymological components.

As for the particular hysteria example, it is merely silly. I am not, however, going to indulge Gavin in his games of misdirection, so those who are curious as to why it is silly should simply consult a historical dictionary, such as the OED.

Gavin's primary forensic techniques are not reasoned debate, but caricature, misdirection, and distortion, apparently because he cannot answer the substance of objections to his assertions. So, instead of following Gavin on his tortuous and irrelevant paths of argument, let us, once again, return to the original point that Gavin prefers not to face, because he cannot refute it:

Although authorities, such as compilers of dictionaries, do not control language, they do sometimes influence language by prescribing usage.

Gavin stated in his Whitehead-related post that they do not. I corrected him, and I received a barrage of sarcasm and innuendo for my pains. That's all there is to all this.

So, from Gavin's responses to this minor provocation, it is easy to see which of us is really insecure and filled with feelings of inferiority. No one who is truly secure would respond with such, dare I say, "hysteria", ;-) as Gavin has to this minor nose-tweaking on my part. Let's not forget that a mere two-paragraph statement of disagreement by me in the Whitehead thread is what led to the torrents of logorrhea that Gavin has unleashed in this thread.

The other actual, concrete point that began this discussion is whether the word homophobia is or is not an aliterate construction. All of Gavin's voluminous remarks really amount to nothing more than the following simple argument: "Yes, the word homophobia was created out of a misunderstanding of its root components, but that fact does not matter, because people know what it means". Calonlan and I disagree with this assertion, and we feel that it does matter, for the reasons we have stated. This entire debate really amounts to nothing more or less than that. Whether or not such (mis)usage is OK, is merely a value-judgment. So, why, I wonder, does a difference of opinion by two individuals seem to upset Gavin so much? The vast majority are on his side, after all.

In sum, I wish that I could share Calonlan's sunnier view that, if we could all meet in person, everything would be settled amicably. On the other hand, I have no doubt that Gavin at least would be on better behavior, because his insinuations and name-calling show all the earmarks of the typical Internet debater, who, when confronted in person, and deprived of the privilege of hiding at a distance behind a computer monitor, will usually be less prone to name-calling and other ad hominem attacks.

I could, and initially did, write much more, but, as Calonlan mentions, there are far more important matters to tend to (hope all's well with you in Corpus, by the way), so I am finished with this discussion. Although I realize that I share some of the blame for this by framing the first part of my initial post here in controversial terms, I think it a shame that there was no serious or intelligent response to the main point of the thread: The legitimacy of reviving older words and forms of usage as part of the evolution of language, and the relationship of this point to the work of Clark Ashton Smith. Ah, well, better luck next time, perhaps....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11 Sep 08 | 09:45PM by Kyberean.

>>"I have no doubt that Gavin at least would be on better behavior, because his insinuations and name-calling show all the earmarks of the typical Internet debater, who, when confronted in person, and deprived of the privilege of hiding at a distance behind a computer monitor, will usually be less prone to name-calling and other ad hominem attacks."

Oh, I'm just as bad in person- and I have the broken nose, chipped teeth, and other scars to prove it.... Irish pugnacious nature, what can I say............

If I ever finish the god-$$#!@@@##$@$#% Lovecraft essay I'm working on, I'd like to submit it to Kyberean for vetting; I'd like to test my logic/conclusions by his. I'm sure it will make the essay better for it, if he'd be willing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Sep 08 | 05:14PM by Gavin Callaghan.

I used to work with one of the best and brightest Psycholinguists of the 80's. We analyzed everyday language for ad testing and focus groups. It turns out that you need to work at 6th grade language level to communicate effectively to a representative sample.

Chicken and the Egg...did the media cause this or are they responding to it? More likely a hysteresis loop with a downward trend.

Language like CAS or HPL fell out of favor in literature with Hemmingway and a shift to simpler, more direct language. In Poetry the shift took the shape of dropping words with Greek or Roam roots in favor of words with anglo saxon roots.

This does not preclude the wondrous effect of the language of HPL and CAS, but the time when that type of language was seen in fiction and poetry is gone. To write that way now is seen as affectation. Leaving a dilemma for the modern writer who wants to evoke some of the mood and atmosphere of CAS or HPL. If you use their language you are guilty of anachronistic affectation. If you don't it is hard to get the cadences and generate the same moods.

Steve

Interesting thread, even if one needs to handle it with tongs and a hazmat suit. I'm surprised that nobody has thrown out this statement by CAS (maybe not so surprised, since it's in SPELLS AND PHILTRES and THE DEVIL'S NOTEBOOK, which aren't exactly commonplace items):

"The modern intolerance toward what is called 'painted speech,' toward 'the grand manner,' springs too often from the instinctive resentment inspired in vulgar minds by all that savors of loftiness, exaltation, nobility, sublimity and aristocracy."

Scott

One problem with this complaint is that if "vulgar minds" were to embrace CAS-speak, it would, of course, no longer savor of "loftiness, exaltation, nobility, sublimity and aristocracy."

It's nice to see interesting, civil, and in-point replies to this thread, after all. I was afraid that I was simply going to have to abandon it.


sverba:

I understand your point, and, if I grasp the thrust of your remarks correctly, I assume you approach this problem from the persepctive of a writer seeking publication today. That's a valid perspective from which to consider the matter, certainly.

More generally, though, I have to admit that I really don't care what others think, regarding alleged affectation and the like, because I speak largely as I write, and it comes as naturally to me as does breathing--for better or for worse! I dare say the same was true of CAS and HPL, in their day, so for any of us to conform to the low (in my opinion) modern standards of literary discourse would actually smack of the unnatural and the affected.

Scott:

Thanks very much for reminding me of that quotation of CAS's. It is very much one of my favorites of his, and I am ashamed to have forgotten it in "the heat of battle".

JoJo Lapin X:

I see your point, as well, but I think that CAS's point is that "vulgar minds" would never even consider the possibility of tolerating "painted speech", or of appreciating it in its own realm, let alone the possibility of emulating it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Sep 08 | 07:24PM by Kyberean.

I think that CAS might respond that if vulgar minds embraced such a manner, it would ennoble them and they would no longer be vulgar. I think there might be some validity to such an assertion.

Scott

But the whole point of concepts such as "loftiness, exaltation, nobility, sublimity and aristocracy" is that they, per definition, exclude someone or other. We cannot all be aristocrats, you know; the notion would lose its meaning.

When CAS uses words like "menstruum" (I am not sure he ever does, but the word is a favorite of mine) he does so because he does not want Joe Average to understand---he is addressing an idealized, "refined" reader. So it is somewhat unsportsmanlike to complain when Joe Average in fact does not understand.

CAS's statement may be anti-democratic, and a subjective value-judgment, but so what? Any statement that attacked it would be no less subjective, and no less a matter of mere opinion.

For the rest... while not everyone can be "the best", in the sense of aristos, everyone can, with some application, become better than he currently is. In this respect, there is nothing unsportsmanlike about expecting Joe Average to reach for his dictionary when he does not understand a word. There is also nothing unsportsmanlike about complaining when he fails to do so because of sheer laziness, or because of inverse snobbery that takes perverse pride in ignorance and anti-intellectualism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20 Sep 08 | 03:13PM by Kyberean.

Gavin wrote:

Quote:

If I ever finish the god-$$#!@@@##$@$#% Lovecraft essay I'm working on, I'd like to submit it to Kyberean for vetting; I'd like to test my logic/conclusions by his. I'm sure it will make the essay better for it, if he'd be willing.

Sorry that I missed this, earlier. I'd be glad to read it and comment, if you are serious about wanting me to do so.

Thanks for your concern re the hurricane - oddly enough it swerved more toward the great city and we didn't get even one drop of water, though a little higher than ususal surf. This coming month, I reach my three score and ten to my complete amazement and wonder, and the eleventh year with Scott Bickel's heart (www.scott.bickels.net) -- to celebrate, I am doing an evening I will call "Shakespeare's Ages of Man" based on a broadway presentation by Sir John Geilgud almost 50 years ago - sort of a final master recital - I intend to sneak in the 1928 poem of Clark's - Temporality - which appears in "Sword" when reading love sonnets -
Also, thanks to the community who have bought "Sword", I received a nice
little royalty check from Derrick - so in Clark's honor I blew it on a gallon of cheap burgundy and a quantity of sharp cheese and hard tack - a favorite snack under the tree by the rock on a balmy Auburn eve, where good conversation and give and take can result in the substantial lowering of the visible levels in the jug.