• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Ontology of Linguistics

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Ontology of Linguistics

    If I write a word that is recognised as a "swear word", it will be changed to an "innocent" word, to avoid offence. But if I do as we all seem to now, and just continue writing these words, knowing that everybody knows what they are, what is the difference? Is it the word itself that gives offence, not its use?

    So that it is OK to see "tulip" or even "tulipe" in a post, but not tulip or tulipe (you know what I mean). I swore and you know I swore: why are you less offended because the words have been transformed?

    #2
    Language evolves, so if used often enough in a "rude" context, tulip will eventually become a "rude" word.

    Classic example is the word: gay

    When your grandad used to have a "gay time in the playground" after school he probably wasn't using a tube of lube ...

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by moorfield View Post
      Language evolves, so if used often enough in a "rude" context, tulip will eventually become a "rude" word.

      Classic example is the word: gay

      When your grandad used to have a "gay time in the playground" after school he probably wasn't using a tube of lube ...
      I remember my Dad used to say 'I turned queer in the night' (meaning he felt odd or unwell).

      Comment


        #4
        My grandad used to 'lift shirts' for a living. He worked in a laundry.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by expat View Post
          If I write a word that is recognised as a "swear word", it will be changed to an "innocent" word, to avoid offence. But if I do as we all seem to now, and just continue writing these words, knowing that everybody knows what they are, what is the difference? Is it the word itself that gives offence, not its use?

          So that it is OK to see "tulip" or even "tulipe" in a post, but not tulip or tulipe (you know what I mean). I swore and you know I swore: why are you less offended because the words have been transformed?
          I'm more offended by the tulip than by the sh.1t.

          However it's not my site and I imagine that Cuk benefits from not being blocked by webfilters. There are a lot of people posting from work who would not be able to visit the site if one of the net nazi companies blocked it.

          Comment

          Working...
          X