wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I actually enjoyed much of Sprague's biography on
> HPL for the biographical information it provided,
> and I am always interested to see what other
> writers have to say concerning Lovecraft's weird
> fiction. The book came out just at the time that
> I was becoming an obsess'd Lovecraft freak. I was
> in the E.O.D. and visiting every week-end with H.
> Warner Munn who lived nearby, and I was
> corresponding with many of the original Lovecraft
> Circle gang. Sprague was a warm and generous
> correspondent, a really nice guy who loved the
> genre. I ended my friendship with him when I came
> out as queer, became militant and would not
> tolerate any form of homophobia. Sprague
> innocently wrote that it might be possible for me
> to be "cured" of my sexuality, and thus I stopped
> having anything to do with him. I regret it now,
> as I avoided him when he was a guest at Norwescon
> and I could have actually met him. I have never
> read any of his fiction.


My response here has nothing to do with the thread per se, but is an appeal to rectify the usage of an appallingly inaccurate "phony term" which has leaked its way into common usage - those in the literary word need to know better - I have, by the way, consulted with a half-dozen or so of my fellow philologists world-wide on this issue - interestingly, on the continent (Europe) where the term is totally unfamiliar, they got the real meaning at once - Homo-phobia --- Phobia is a Greek noun (in psychiatry it is used to denote a psychosis - very poor function here) and the prefix "homo" (not to be confused with Latin "HOMO = man) means "things being the same all the time - the element of duration is a central part of the meaning, as in Homogenized milk - reflecting a uniform state that cannot be altered - the actual meaning is "fear of boredom" - you may also refer to Dr. John Robertson's dictionary of "phobias" - who added this term after conversations with myself and others.
If a Greek term is sought, the correct term for Homosexual in the Koine is "arsenkoitai" = men emulating coitus - this term dates from at least the first century AD. Add -phobia, and you have a legitimate technical term - the fake term is so because it is never used other than as a pejorative - similarly-- "homoerotic" would mean boring sex - "eros" in Latin is "amor", and may be joined with Latin "homo" (Homoamoric? - maybe) - In any event, I would pray that on this forum this incorrectly used term might vanish, as well as any usage of "impact" as a verb - well this goes on and on and on and I wouldn't want anyone to become homophobic over the length of this piece.

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My response here has nothing to do with the thread
> per se, but is an appeal to rectify the usage of
> an appallingly inaccurate "phony term" which has
> leaked its way into common usage - those in the
> literary word need to know better - I have, by the
> way, consulted with a half-dozen or so of my
> fellow philologists world-wide on this issue -
> interestingly, on the continent (Europe) where the
> term is totally unfamiliar, they got the real
> meaning at once - Homo-phobia --- Phobia is a
> Greek noun (in psychiatry it is used to denote a
> psychosis - very poor function here) and the
> prefix "homo" (not to be confused with Latin "HOMO
> = man) means "things being the same all the time -
> the element of duration is a central part of the
> meaning, as in Homogenized milk - reflecting a
> uniform state that cannot be altered - the actual
> meaning is "fear of boredom" - you may also refer
> to Dr. John Robertson's dictionary of "phobias" -
> who added this term after conversations with
> myself and others.
> If a Greek term is sought, the correct term for
> Homosexual in the Koine is "arsenkoitai" = men
> emulating coitus - this term dates from at least
> the first century AD. Add -phobia, and you have a
> legitimate technical term - the fake term is so
> because it is never used other than as a
> pejorative - similarly-- "homoerotic" would mean
> boring sex - "eros" in Latin is "amor", and may be
> joined with Latin "homo" (Homoamoric? - maybe) -
> In any event, I would pray that on this forum this
> incorrectly used term might vanish, as well as any
> usage of "impact" as a verb - well this goes on
> and on and on and I wouldn't want anyone to become
> homophobic over the length of this piece.

Not this again. Yes, by all means, let's bend over for half-dozen "philologists" and replace the fully integrated "homophobia" with "arsenkoitaiphobia" because, you know, English is apparently Koine Greek. But really, you should feel free to use your old neologism till you're blue in the face, since it won't impact current usage in the slightest.

While I appreciate the philological point being made (and I too recall it from last time), I'd have to agree with priscian that calling this a "phony term" is going a bit far. Language is first and foremost the province of actual speakers, not scholars. It might in some arcane sense be infelicitous as a hybrid of Latin and Greek roots, but for purposes of communication that's totally irrelevant. It's not a Latin, Greek, or (apparently) British English word, but an American word. If it were even possible to start policing colloquial word choices, it would still be undesirable. Languages change and get mashed up together quite naturally continually. The English language in general (whichever version) is a glorious Frankenstein's monster of Germanic grammar, roots and grammatical elements from a dozen Celtic, Romance, and other Indo-European language groups, borrowed words from all over the globe, and neologisms such as "homophobia". In the end what matters is that when I say or write it, other human beings who ostensibly speak the same language know what I mean.

While it may indeed be quite incorrect by the strict rules of etymology, this would not be the first time such a word became accepted usage, even by rather strict authorities, over time. In my 1979 printing of the condensed version of the OED, it is not listed as a separate entry (though I haven't looked under the various formulations with "homo-"), nor in my 1986 Funk & Wagnall's, a few years later it was accepted as legitimate by Webster's, and it is also in the American Heritage dictionary, as well as Meriam-Webster, both of which identify it as either an unreasoning fear or an uneasiness or discomfort toward people of a homosexual orientation; the original usage was apparently between 1955-1960, depending on what authority one looks at. So while it may be a botched marriage from the get-go, I'm afraid it has achieved enough viability that it must be accepted at least as recognized usage.

As for the objection to this usage of "impact"... here is what Webster's has to say on this usage of the term:


"The verb IMPACT has developed the transitive sense "to have an impact or effect on" [...] and the transitive sense "to have an impact or effect"[...]. Although recent, the new uses are entirely standard and most likely to occur in formal speech and writing."

Sprague's homophobia was common at the time, and his remarks were made in what I now see was a friendly way. I reacted violently because I had just gone through Mormon therapy, with the church trying to "cure" me, and it was such an unpleasant experience that I over-reacted when anyone try'd to censor my rad queer nature. It was at this time that I dropped out of the Lovecraft/weird fiction community and began to explore various lifestyles, which eventually led to the punk rock lifestyle that saved my soul.

I wonder if Sprague has written anything about CAS? I don't have LITERARY SWORDSMEN AND SORCERERS. I have now started rereading his biography on Lovecraft just to find those portions in which he mentions CAS. And I feel I owe the book another chance, reading it without the emotional clutter that littered my other readings.

"I'm a little girl."
--H. P. Lovecraft, Esq.

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While it may indeed be quite incorrect by the
> strict rules of etymology, this would not be the
> first time such a word became accepted usage, even
> by rather strict authorities, over time. In my
> 1979 printing of the condensed version of the OED,
> it is not listed as a separate entry (though I
> haven't looked under the various formulations with
> "homo-"), nor in my 1986 Funk & Wagnall's, a few
> years later it was accepted as legitimate by
> Webster's, and it is also in the American Heritage
> dictionary, as well as Meriam-Webster, both of
> which identify it as either an unreasoning fear or
> an uneasiness or discomfort toward people of a
> homosexual orientation; the original usage was
> apparently between 1955-1960, depending on what
> authority one looks at. So while it may be a
> botched marriage from the get-go, I'm afraid it
> has achieved enough viability that it must be
> accepted at least as recognized usage.
>
> As for the objection to this usage of "impact"...
> here is what Webster's has to say on this usage of
> the term:
>
>
> "The verb IMPACT has developed the transitive
> sense "to have an impact or effect on" [...] and
> the transitive sense "to have an impact or
> effect"[...]. Although recent, the new uses are
> entirely standard and most likely to occur in
> formal speech and writing."

The online OED's earliest quotation of "homophobia" is from Time magazine in 1969, so the word had probably been current for at least a few years by then. It's not a new word, and it's prevalent enough now to withstand musty ex cathedra pronouncements on a matter of taste.

Well, we've had this discussion before. It leads nowhere.
Bill Farmer stands here as a prescriptivist (and of course he is perfectly entitled and qualified to do so). It all amounts to whether you choose to consider the matter from a descriptive or prescriptive point of view. For example, for an adept of descriptive linguistics, homo, in homophobia, is actually the result of the process we call back-clipping (or apocope) and stands for homosexual. This is the way thousands of words have been coined in most indo-european languages recently (we use homophobie in French) and this is the way it is understood by most people. However, from a prescriptive viewpoint, this is wrong, this should not be, we shouldn't be talking that way and descriptive linguists should not encourage us to do so because this is the “lazy way”, it is highly misleading, confusing, illogical, etc.
It is true that, for example, in the 1960's, according to the OED, the word homophile was apparently meant to mean: “A term for a homosexual (regarded as a person belonging to a particular social group rather than as someone who is sexually abnormal)”. This word was indeed coined “according to the book” from a prescriptive viewpoint. But if you ask someone now, this word will surely be understood as “someone who likes homosexuals, without necessarily being one”, just because the apocope homo- is now of a much wider use. Facts are stubborn.


See this thread for more details : [www.eldritchdark.com]

"Facts are stubborn." Yes, they are, the unruly little things....

Yes, it is a matter of "back-clipping", just as the verb usage of "impact" is by way of a back formation; both are perfectly acceptable ways for new combinations to enter a language, however incorrect they may be by academic standards.

However, I wouldn't say such discussions are pointless, nor that they necessarily lead nowhere. Many people visiting these boards may not be aware of these aspects of language, or may only be beginning to explore the tangled wonders of its development with its many ramifications, associations, subtleties in flavoring, etc., and such a discussion can be productive for such, including newer writers. Even with older readers, such a discussion seems fitting when dealing with CAS, as he was so aware of these subtleties with his own writing (especially his verse), and therefore it may help them to bring a sharper awareness of that element to their reading of his work, thereby finding more of the richness it has to offer.

ne3

This never grows old. How about another round.

jdworth: yes, you are right, of course. I just meant that it seemed to lead nowhere for those who had had this conversation before : both sides stick to their opinion and that's it.

I don't mean to come across as overly conciliatory but yes, I see the objection for those who have been through this earlier. I was simply thinking of those who have not; for them it may prove instructive and interesting. For the old-timers, it is likely to be either a bore or frankly annoying, though I will admit to not finding it such myself... at least, not yet!

There seem to be two basic (unaddressed) issues underlying this linguistic "homophobia" debate: 1) the question as to whether erroneous neologisms have validity, and 2) the issue as to whether the politicization of language (in this case, the use of the term "homophobia", presumably by pro-gay forces, to pathologize a dislike of homosexuals/homosexuality) has any validity.

As to 1) yes they do. Take J.R.R. Tolkien's erroneous neologism "dwarves", for example. Tolkien, as educated as he was, nevertheless naturally figured that elf is to elves, what dwarf is to dwarves. Which it isn't (the correct spelling is "dwarfs".) Yet dwarves is now found everywhere, particularly in the fantasy genre.

As to 2): sadly, yes. Take the term "miscegenation", for example, which was apparently created by racist Democratic forces during the Civil War period in their campaign against the Republicans. Yet the term is still used today to denote racial intermixing.

One can, of course, legitimately object to this pathologization of a legitimate dislike. (If one dislikes pizza, does one suffer from "pizzaphobia"? By the same token, if one hates the Nazis, does one suffer from "Naziphobia" -a question which certainly gives the lie to erroneous uses of the term "Islamophobia.") Better to say "anti-gay", in my book, than homophobic.

As I recall -- it has been a while -- Prof. Tolkien addressed that one in his appendices to The Lord of the Rings (or perhaps it was in his essay "On Fairy-Stories"), where he explained his reasons (despite it not being a correct formulation historically) for that....

On use of the term "homophobic" as opposed to "anti-gay"... I would say there is a layer of significance which the latter lacks, which makes the former useful at least in certain contexts. Either one may be acceptable, but in my view it depends on what is being said as to which is the more appropriate....

To use the term "anti-gay" would mean that we agree that "gay=homosexual," and I find this extremely debatable. Although I use "gay" at times when I describe my sexuality, I prefer such terms as "queer" or "perverse."

"I'm a little girl."
--H. P. Lovecraft, Esq.

wilum pugmire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To use the term "anti-gay" would mean that we
> agree that "gay=homosexual," and I find this
> extremely debatable. Although I use "gay" at
> times when I describe my sexuality, I prefer such
> terms as "queer" or "perverse."


Not answering this specific note except that I, too lament the loss of the word "gay" from the lexicon us really fine old words - from the days when a lady might wear a "nose-gay", or of the days of the 1889's "when we were young and gay", or the absurd satirizing done at Christman with "don we now our gay apparel, fa-la-la-la -
That improper usage, and badly formulated words enter the lexicon through ignorant and corrupt usage is, of course, a fact of life - usually regrettable, and particularly since, as noted previously the term "-phobia" has entered as Gavin notes some bizarre results in the Sweepstakes - if, as the psycho-babblers would have it, it implies a pathological psychosis when, as in "Islamophobia" it can mean (if it must mean something) a detestation for a religion and culture that circumsizes girls! Appalling - And my sympathy truly goes out to you William if you were forced to be "re=programmed" by Mormons - that, in itself, set you into a thoroughly anti-intellectual orbit from day one ( not to offend those who sincerely think the 12 "Lost" tribes of Israel crossed the Atlantic in Erie Canal boats to become the progenitors of American Indians) - on that score you have my sympathy and admiration for having emerged from such with a measure of sanity and wit. More power to you -
And, of course, I realize attempting rectify the stupidity of the general public is like removing Everest with a Tea Spoon - yet, while I live, I continue to strike a blow for precision, not just communication, a position which was strongly held by Clark Ashton Smith, and Donald Sydney Fryer, myself, and a handful of others - The sad part for us is that when these terms are used incorrectly, it does not succeed in communicating to me, but jars the hearing away from the speaker's intent - Short by note: you may enjoy the "Phobia" collection on Professor Robertson's delightful website, www.lexfiles.com - and if you have in your care students who want to ace the SAT, refer them to the bottom of his homepage for a link to the "basic 14 words", a list compiled by the Univ. of Michigan some years ago to help students deprived of the opportunity to learn Latin to rapidly acquire the tools necessary for "de-coding" more than 140,000 Latin-based English words - I have successfully used this tool with a number of private students in the last few years in acquiring scholarship producing scores - that, along with the Chicago Herald Tribune daily crossword for learning to decipher third-level abstractions used in solving ratio problems on the SAT - also lots of fun - you remember them? A tree is to the forest as A,B,C,D, or E (none of the above) - my favorite - three letter word for "celestial butter" - answer "RAM" - as I shall be gone from this forum for some time answering the call of distress from the depths of despair by my son, suffering the after-affects of a brutal divorce, I shall say for the nonce, adieu! and, as Dr. Johnson suggests in Boswell's "Life" - I shall be the agreeable man and "yield the wall" -
great affection for you all,
drf