BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 11:40 PM

frogprince, I am going to have go drag out my granddad's late 1800s four volume dictionary to look those up, now!

I grew up hearing a lot of those, too, including to "jew" someone down and also to be "gypped" out of something. My mom and dad lived long enough to learn about the offensiveness and not use them, though I think dad still did when he was in his wife's company. I'll never forget her saying to me one time when they first were together, I was about 23, three kids, and had braided my hair the night before so it would be wavy the next day when I took the braids out. That bitch actually said she didn't understand why anyone would want their hair to look like a "niggers." I left immediately and didn't speak to her or my dad for several years after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 01:33 PM

BAck in the day, Stan Freburg had a radio show. He made a punchline out of "This way, we don't offend anybody"

He'd do a Lone Ranger skit, and when someone refered to Tonto as his faithful Indian companion, he'd explain, "No. He's Swiss. That way we don't offend anyone"

Similarly with the Green Hornet, and his faithful Swiss helpper Cato.

And people got th Swiss Flu. That way, ....

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 12:20 PM

... & to think that the current Chambers contains an explicit definition for 'felch', as I came across just yesterday.

I kid you not either...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 12:17 PM

Some collegues and I came across an early 1900's dictionary in the ancient store where we worked. Two sample definitions, if you can really call them definitions:

      masturbation: self-pollution

      orgasm: immoderate sexual excitation.

I kid you not.

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 07:00 AM

My parents are from a time socially when things were different regarding the things you could say and sometimes as above they might use words that are similar and yet they were as much against the Nazis as anyone. Sometimes I feel I have to distance myself away from them incase they forget what they are saying.

Back in my youth during the 70s and 80s too girls who might have been very flirty or had been known (on heresay mind you) to be a bit free and easy would have been called a scrubber or slag or tart which is a sexist thing to say.

The word that crops up a lot these days seems to be Chav (Vicky Pollard) type girls pink puffa jacket leggings and toddlers in tow when really Chavvy is a girl child from the Roma community.

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 09:34 AM

"Come on you Yi-ids" is still heard from Spurs supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: Jack Campin
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 08:59 AM

I think I last encountered "jew [somebody] down" as a phrasal verb meaning "bargain" someime arund 1980. It wouldn't surprise me if it were still used somewhere.

I encountered "Dutch wife" in the late 50s, when I used one. It was a standard way of dealing with prickly heat or similar itchy sweaty skin conditions (in my case chickenpox). "Dutch auction" is still current.

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 07:14 AM

LH -

With dictionaries it's probably more a problem of how big the book is going to be than whether a specific definition "might offend someone." Definitions that aren't in curent and frequent use are likely to be dropped just to save the space on the paper.

Although it varies, in my part of the US there have been a few "slurs" that actually refer to the "Dutch" but for the most part when some illiterate said "Dutch" it was a corrupted pronunciation of "Deutsch" and everybody knew who was being insulted. It wasn't the Dutch.

Probably not well known, in sheetmetal trades the term "Dutchmans" (always with the "s") is still used for compound lever metal snips, without derogatory implications. The prevalent, and perhaps only, manufacturer of them beginning in the late 1930s or perhaps earlier was "Deutsch Mfg Co." It appears to be the same company making them today, although the company name has changed a couple of times and is currently "WISS."

John

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 06:36 AM

I don't see what harm there is in a very thorough dictionary taking note of all the colloguial meanings of a given word, even if some of them are deeemed offensive by various people. The publishers of the dictionary, after all, aren't saying they're in favor of every colloquial meaning or usage of the word. They're just noting that a given colloquial usage of it has occurred.

You do not endorse a thing by recognizing its existence.

Similarly, you do not endorse Naziism by building a model kit of a WWII German airplane and correctly placing the historical swastika insignia on the tail of that plane. You are simply creating an accurate replica. Period. It's not a political statement, and shouldn't be taken as such, it's simply a visually accurate recreation of a German military vehicle of that time, and the darned thing isn't accurate if it doesn't have the swastika on the tail, and if you're a collector or hobbyist...you know that.

****

There's a use of the word "Dutch" which implies stinginess...as in the common expression "Dutch treat". I haven't heard anyone getting too worried about that one, perhaps because there isn't any big political brouhaha going right now in our popular culture about the Dutch... ;-) They aren't seen as victims. Neither are blondes, apparently, and that's why blonde jokes were so much in vogue for a few years there until everyone finally got sick of them (the jokes, I mean).

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 06:11 AM

I cross-posted with Foolstroupe's summary on the OED. That looks like about 5 DVDs, or maybe a couple more. It would probably fit on a reasonably sized thumb drive though.

It would be great to have a digital copy, but I doubt if I'd ever read it all.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 06:04 AM

If you need "slang" definitions there are numerous specialized dictionaries that include only "deviant" words. The definitions you suggest would likely be found in better ones of that kind, and I suspect that persons "sensitive to slurs" might benefit from having one, if knowing whether someone is trying to insult them is a concern. Even with those, historical meanings that are currently rare may not always be included.

An interesting specialized dictionary I recently picked up is the Dictionary of Ancient Deities (Oxford Press, by Turner & Coulter ISBN ) that claims to list every deity that the compilers could find that ever existed. It claims "over 10,000 entries" and I can assure you that most of those won't be found in the majority of dictionaries. (The paperback version was $35 (US) at Barnes, if anyone's interested. It's a rehash of the Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities published about ten years ago.)

(Their definitions of "current dieties" might be offensive to some current believers, as they're "historically correct" but omit the "religiosity," and don't differentiate between the "true" and the "false" deities. But of course we all know who they are.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: Will Fly
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 05:58 AM

"He just jewed me out of some money" was a phrase I heard as a child in the late '40s/early '50s - but hardly ever after that.

My father, ever socially thoughtless, referred to people as "yids" - but that's also a term that I haven't heard (thank heaven) in years.

I also believe that, space permitting, all current and historical definitions and meanings of a word should be given in a dictionary. The problem is in the phrase "space permitting"...

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 05:54 AM

Back in the 80/90s I thought about buying the 20 vol edition of the OED offered at a special mark down price ... I didn't...

Wiki says
The OED's official policy is to attempt to record a word's most-known usages and variants in all varieties of English past and present, worldwide. Per the 1933 "Preface":

    The aim of this Dictionary is to present in alphabetical series the words that have formed the English vocabulary from the time of the earliest records [ca. AD740] down to the present day, with all the relevant facts concerning their form, sense-history, pronunciation, and etymology. It embraces not only the standard language of literature and conversation, whether current at the moment, or obsolete, or archaic, but also the main technical vocabulary, and a large measure of dialectal usage and slang.

It continues:

    Hence we exclude all words that had become obsolete by 1150 [the end of the Old English era] ... Dialectal words and forms which occur since 1500 are not admitted, except when they continue the history of the word or sense once in general use, illustrate the history of a word, or have themselves a certain literary currency.

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 05:42 AM

Very few of the "common" dictionaries attempt to define all definitions ever used for any words.

The most common "charter" for dictionaries is to include "words in current (or recent) usage" and the "current (and sometimes recent) definitions and usages."

There are dictionaries that attempt to include virtually all words, although "unabridged" only sometimes really means what it says. There are fewer that attempt to include all historical meanings and usages except sometimes for cases where those may be "infrequent but not extremely rare." Scholars in applicable fields need to "know" which dictionary to use, but "students" usually can get by with an "abridged" version.

My "Random House Unabridged Dictionary" admits that it omits some definitions that wouldn't fit on the accompanying CD. I keep the CD copied to my hard drive, and she used the actual book (about 7.5 inches thick on very thin paper) for a footrest for a dozen years until I bought her a shorter chair.

I suspect that the OED would need at least a DVD (or two or ...).

Not every dictionary can be multiple volumes (or shelves) in every library.

It's best to find one that includes what you expect to use, but sometimes you need one you can stuff in your book bag without putting wheels on the bag.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 05:36 AM

They didn't want to be seen to be possibly causing offense.

Subject: BS: Potentially Offensive Dict Definitions
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 04:14 AM

Growing out of the 'Racial slurs in quotations' thread, I would relate the following:~

Some years ago, I wrote to Collins Dictionary, one of the most highly regarded of the standard available one-volume dictionaries [tho I greatly prefer Chambers myself], asking why their entry for the word "Jew" made no reference, even with some such get-out addition as 'non-acceptable' or 'offensive' or 'obsolete', to the indisputable & unavoidable fact that the word was used for many years, as a verb to mean 'to cheat or overreach, esp financially', and as a noun to mean 'a miser or skinflint'. {My impression BTW is that the verbal usage has disappeared, tho I recall hearing it in my lifetime, during my 1950s National Service; but I have come across the noun still in use quite recently, on the lips of quite a close acquaintance who didn't happen to know my origins [see below*]. I was so astonished & taken aback that I failed to make any reply, on which my late wife later expressed her relief ~ on the whole!}.

Surely, I said in my letter to the editors of Collins, the function of a dictionary is to record what a word means, in any of the usages which exist or have existed, rather than to record what the editors think it ought to mean. I received a reply from the executive responsible for definitions to the effect that I was quite right, he couldn't imagine how such an oversight could have occurred, I could be assured it would be corrected and the definition appropriately expanded in the next edition...

It wasn't. No such emendation has occurred.

I still think it should have done. What do others think on this?

~Michael~

{*I should perhaps add, for any who didn't know, that I myself, though a baptised and confirmed Anglican who has now returned to his default atheist setting, was born to Jewish parents & thus brought up & had the usual introduction to the faith at age 13 &c. ~M~}