Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I have noticed something interesting about dictionaries and some vocab books. One dictionary labels a word as literary, old-fashioned, or formal, then you come to see it unlabeled by another, or used by ordinary people in every-day context.
That may happen about 'vulgarity' too. Your dictionary labels the phrase(=have the balls to…) as vulgar, then you hear someone use it in a rather formal interview.
It boggles my mind since I pay close attention to these things. I don't have any clues.
Rafee
That particular expression **is** vulgar, and still is if the Pope uses it in public.
That's why it's often dangerous for any person newly arriving in a country to try to assimilate too fast the behaviors of the 'natives.' And that is most true of America where public behaviors -speech, clothing- are pushed to the limit of the law which is almost no limit at all.
I do believe though, that there are universal standards, shared by all humans even without being taught, but which are prone to being overwhelmed by the maximum volumed propaganda from a crazy environment like ours.
(But by no means am I saying one should avoid using vulgar expressions, just that one should know what one is doing.)
As I see it, it's merely that different people have different standards about proper language in a given situation.
Some people are uncomfortable about scatological or sexual terms, and don't say "shit" or "ass".
Other people—not always the same ones—take religion seriously, so they don't use words like "Hell", "damn", "Jesus" or "God" in casual exclamations; though of course that doesn't apply to discussions about the things themselves. Still others are uncomfortable with serious discussion about God, and use those words only in casual exclamations.
Some have no such compunctions, and don't think that "oh, hell!" or "that was ballsy" are very strong and therefore will use them more casually. Surely this is the same in your society?
There are also more specific disagreements. In my wife's family, "fart" is considered slightly offensive, as I discovered after marrying her. I never thought so as a child and still don't, so I watch whom I say it around but am not bothered if other people say it.
And then there are differences of opinion about what kind of situations are formal or informal: on the job, at ceremonies such as weddings and political speeches, indoors and outdoors, on parade in the military vs working in the kitchen, with close friends vs your first meeting with people important to you (boss, prospective in-laws, pastor) and so on. I think most people start out guarding their words, and relax slowly as they find a level of speech, a level of casualness, that fits with the people around them.
And of course in moments of surprise or strong emotion one might say more than one intended. I remember once I ... Well, suffice it to say that it was under great duress, and it was in front of my younger siblings and cousins, and my father had something to say to me about it afterword, but he and I both understood that there were extenuating (but not excusing) circumstances.
Your explanations gave me insight into the matter, but two of the categories included in my question were left out; i.e., the 'literary' and 'old-fashioned' labels. Are the boundaries of literariness and old-fashioned-ness the same as relative? Although I can somehow digest it, it sounds really weird since literary (or old-fashioned) words are literary (or old-fashioned).
I don't know; I suppose if a term is only slightly old-fashioned, then it would be natural that it strike some editors as more old-fashioned than it seems to others; so some dictionaries might mark it as old-fashioned and others not. The same with the literary quality.
In fact, it's possible (I should think) to confuse the two qualities. A term that is old-fashioned is probably going to be seen only in old books, so it's both old-fashioned and literary; and the people who read old books are more likely to be familiar with those terms, and to use them without thinking, so even in oral conversation you'll hear them mostly from literary (or old-fashioned) people.
Language is a "living organism" . Language is in constant movement, it is changing and developing. If one word is old-fashioned in one dictionary and literary in another one, it is not surprising at all. Language "is moving so rapidly" that we do not even catch up with it. Most dictionaries are based on Corpus data which provide accurate information. But language changes every minute in response to the development of new technologies and many other factors. Besides one should choose a good dictionary, of course.
If one linguistic sign becomes literary after having been old-fashioned for years, it is nothing but a result of constant change. Either language reorganizes its units or coins new ones. Otherwise, the language will die if it "stands still".
As W.F.Humboult said: "Language is a gradually opening eternity like the man".
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)