|
|
|
|
OMG this is annoying^^
and yet im in such a good mood^^ =P
i read somewhere on here --on a certain topic-- 'Does he have the hots for you" [END quote^^]
and it kinda pisses me off a little, that question.
It seems to me like it's a provate question that shouldnt be asked. (And I'm not trying to sound negative, tho im not even in a bad mood, and im not mocking anyone, i'm just me. =P)
It's like asking someone of you want to hook up or something.. (Which i COMPLETELY feel is a culnerable question.
And I may be insecure or something, but it BUGS ME!....
If anyone wants to comment or talk here, feel free^^
~Josh~
*hugs*
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
culnerable??
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
meow??
what do you mean?
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VULNERABLE^_^
i meant to say vulnerable.^^
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well, I looked up the word in 4 dictionaries........
No listing.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Ahhh....
Well then, how does that question make you feel vulnerable?
If anyone is going about trying to hook up, meet, befriend, date someone then at some point an enquiring move to ascertain the position of the intended object of romance must be made.......
Certainly asking, "does he have the hots for you" is not out of line.....
But then, what do I know.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not sure how things are in Canada, but around here asking if someone has the hots for you, is just asking if you know If he wants you like you want him. sorry I just cant see that as invading your privacy. Asking someone if they want to hook up is just asking if they want to go on a date. Why that would make you feel vulnerable I have no idea.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i didnt mean to affend anyone..
something about the question just bugs me.
of course then again, if someone asked me 'does he have the hots for you' i'd blush and look away, trying not to notice the person.
*shrugs* *laughs* this is kida funny if you think about it. one way it bugs me, one way it doesnt. lol.
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
im wierd, and i have certain issues when it comes to dating since i left my last friend. (he was my boyfriend, but i always say friend)..
so now im just trying to figure myself out.
it might be fear or something, but .. it bugs me^^;
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry I pissed you off.
How is it personal when you come a message board and flat out say he was HOT, and not expect some one to ask if you knew if he had the hots back. By the way I know it was not you who's post from which this stems from.
Jay
So say what you want
(You know I'm wasting all my time)
You've gotta mean it when you say what you want
(You're only safe when you're alone)
And everybody's on your mind
Saying anything to get you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, of course, as a pedant, my primary problem with the question 'Does he have the hots for you?' is, of course, that 'hot' is an adjective, not a noun, except where it refers to the scrum in the esteemed game of Winchester College Football.
As for whether it's appropriate for here or not... that's a good question. If someone asked me in real life, I would not have a clue what to say (at least, not in a timely fashion) -- partly because I have no idea if anyone ever does have the hots for me! On this board, however, there is more time to compose a response and consider the purpose of the question, even if it's a difficult one to answer.
If the discussion is one in which someone has already asked for advice on relationships, I would take that as tacit consent to ask such questions. If he has not, then it would be up to the poster to use his or her discretion and knowledge of that person's situation to decide whether it is appropriate. It is likely irrelevant if the person being asked is in a long-term monogamous and happy relationship, for example, and uninterested in possible advances.
As a matter of personal preference, I would be inclined to use a more English phrase such as, 'Has he given any indication that he finds you attractive?' as the other question is more casual and American. I think they mean the same sort of thing, though.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
'Has he given any indication that he finds you attractive?'
Yes....... I can actualy picture you going about asking that .....
HOLY CRAP....... no wonder you can't get laid.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I don't mean to offend, Deeej, but I find that quite a comical thought, but unfortunately I have to agree with Marc 
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've always been of the opinion that if you can obtain maximum clarification by the use of formal or technical language, you should: certainly when writing (as on this board).
I expect I would not use those exact words in person; but I would not probably ask a question of that kind in person, either, so the whole thing is somewhat academic. As I said, the word 'hots' is not in my vocabulary. 
I have been teased for my manner of speech before. And my accent. So I am used to it.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
The very term "gay" is quite casual and American. But I'd never go around declaring myself a "homosexual" 
Morphological change is quite common in language and is in fact a natural and accepted linguistic phenomenon. I'd be inclined to say "the hots" is an example of derivational morphology where "the ______s" acts as a circumfix to transform an adjective into a noun. Not sure if it's the only adjective that can take this form, but it's definitely not the only word used in a similar context. You can have "the chills", be given "the creeps", so even though "chill" and "creep" are nouns, it follows the same form.
Come to think of it, though, adjectives are becoming more and more accepted as nouns as the word following the adjective becomes implied by context. Quite often by friends and I talk about someone "chucking a sad". I'd assume that "have the hots for X" originated from "I have hot pants for X" or something similar But I'd sure you could find out something more about it's origin, Deeej (why the third "e", 3 "e"s only exist in casual English!).
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I'd take "Do you have the hots for him" as more personal and intrusive.
If someone is asking me if I like someone, then I usually reply "I dunno, I hope so" if I obviously like them or "why?" if I don't. ^^;;
Or if you know someone has a crush on you, why is it instrusive for people to be curious about that? -_-;;
~Personally~ I don't understand why you'd find such questions as offensive at all
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, 'gay' is the least stigmatised word, and therefore the safest to use in day-to-day conversation. I use it when I feel it is closest to the meaning I wish to convey. 'Homosexual' still has some stigma attached to it ('predatory homosexual', 'homosexual behaviour') from those days when gay sex was illegal. It has a slightly different meaning -- you can be homosexual without being gay, but you can't be gay and not homosexual or at least bisexual.
On the whole, however, I would avoid use of either word except where absolutely necessary.
I would not know if hot pants are associated with 'the hots', but I would have thought it has more to do with 'hot' as in:
Slang.
a. sexually aroused; lustful.
b. sexy; attractive.
(Dictionary.com)
'Hot' as in fiery or passionate has existed for centuries; the slang definition dates from 1920 to 1925, according to dictionary.com, and is presumably an offshoot from that.
Deeej has three 'e's partly so that it is harder to find me by Googling, and partly because of the way people pronounce it.
Incidentally, goddessship is a perfectly good English word with three 's's in a row.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saben said:
>3 "e"s only exist in casual English!
but http://members.aol.com/gulfhigh2/words7.html says:
>The OED has PEEENT as an alternate spelling for "peent," defined as "a representation of the high whistling sound emitted by a woodcock."
So there you have it! Nothing the matter with 'eee' -- certainly not for a proper name, as there are several of those using it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
If you wouldn't ask in person.......
What then would you do?
Circulate a memo?
Send a fax?
Over here, the use of formal and or technical language is basicly reserved for formal occasions where such formality is warranted.....
Otherwise it is refered to anal retentivness and when it is continualy foisted on unwary individuals it is likened to crapping through the eye of a needle at 50 paces.... In other words extreeme anal-retentivness.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said,
>I expect I would not use those exact words in person;
Marc said,
>What then would you do?
>Circulate a memo?
>Send a fax?
That is a poor attempt at sarcasm, since you missed my original point. I might say those words on this messageboard or by email, when I have had a chance to draft a reply, but I would probably phrase it a little less formally if I were talking to someone face to face. It would not, however, be out of the question for me to use them.
>Over here, the use of formal and or technical language is basicly reserved for formal occasions where such formality is warranted.....
It is better to get a point across once using clear language (I do not necessarily mean formal or technical language, but I do mean using words that are unambiguous in the context) than to make the same point several times using language that is vague, poorly constructed, grammatically incorrect, poorly punctuated and badly spelt. (Those last two do not, of course, apply in conversation.) You will not be able to change my mind on that.
The difference between us, perhaps, is that you regard this messageboard as a place for casual conversation; I see it as a place to discuss interesting ideas. In real life, I am not a good public speaker (I um and er a lot when nervous), so one way I can ensure clarity is to make sure that my language is correct to the best of my ability. I do not use technical language as such, but I do assume that listeners have a reasonable vocabulary. This has served me well enough so far and I see no reason to change.
>Otherwise it is refered to anal retentivness and when it is continualy foisted on unwary individuals it is likened to crapping through the eye of a needle at 50 paces.... In other words extreeme anal-retentivness.
Um, that is a confusing analogy, presumably one that comes out of not using formal or well thought-out language. What has crapping through the eye of a needle at fifty paces got to do with anything, apart from being something that is in fact impossible? Why would anyone who was anally retentive want to do that? Do you even know what anal means in this context?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
>
> >Otherwise it is refered to anal retentivness and when it is continualy foisted on unwary individuals it is likened to crapping through the eye of a needle at 50 paces.... In other words extreeme anal-retentivness.
>
> Um, that is a confusing analogy, presumably one that comes out of not using formal or well thought-out language. What has crapping through the eye of a needle at fifty paces got to do with anything, apart from being something that is in fact impossible? Why would anyone who was anally retentive want to do that? Do you even know what anal means in this context?
>
I don't see how this is confusing..... But then somethings are not carried totaly understood over the pond as you say.... I'll just call it the Atlantic.... well.
As for conversationalism, well here it is all in the mind of the person doing the typing.... Or perhaps I should check with you before I post anything to be sure it is suitable for posting?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
A woodcock.....
Is this a purchased cock or is it whittled......
And once in place who does the blowing to get it to whistle?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me that is a rude, intrusive question that would only be accepted from a very close friend. From any other person it would be an invasion of my privacy. Who I find attractive and wish to have relations with is nobody's business except the particular object of my desire and myself.
I am also a very shy person and find personal questions about my sexual desires and hopes to be violations of my personal privacy. My automatic response is one of embarassment and expediant flight.
Hugs, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
It could certainly be asked differently. But ocntext is important.
"Do you think he finds you appealing" is better, surely?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy said,
"Do you think he finds you appealing" is better, surely?
I wonder if it sounds a bit too much like
"Has he given any indication that he finds you attractive?"
which is apparently something only I would say.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote
>As I said, the word 'hots' is not in my vocabulary<
It is now.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody is more shy than I am, well maybe someone who never leaves the house. Once you post a question on the board or make a statement in a discusion, then it is no longer private and is open to discussion. Im almost positive that who ever made the statement did not do it to upset or make anyone mad. If someone ask me a question that I thought invasive, I would mearly tell them that its private information. If Im going to expend the energy to get mad and upset, its going to be over something more than if I have the hots for someone.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Off I said it and secon it was dose he have the hots for back
So say what you want
(You know I'm wasting all my time)
You've gotta mean it when you say what you want
(You're only safe when you're alone)
And everybody's on your mind
Saying anything to get you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Deeej ....
I do believe that you're elevating pedantry to new levels! Did you watch the recent BBC2 series 'Balderdash and Piffle'? If so, you'll know that the compilers of the Oxford Dictionary (the full version Robert Robinson used to use on 'Call my Bluff') accept that 'Phwoar' is a valid (albeit colloquial) English word, an exclamation meaning (in sanitised translation!) 'I find that person extremely attractive and sexually arousing'. I haven't contacted them, but I don't doubt that they accept 'hots' as a colloquial noun, derived from recent usage of 'hot' in the sense of sexually attractive. It's simply the modernised form of the common conversational usage 'do you fancy him/her?' - and that phrase had a respectable colloquial lifespan of over 40 years!
Saben ....
You will be taken out and shot at dawn for the appalling offence of suggesting that 'gay' was a colloquial American word. Its origins are wholly British. You have besmirched the reputation of Australia in the intellectual arena. Or something like that.
Timmy ....
Well, I appreciate that you live among royalty - but 'Do you think he finds you appealing?' places you among the irredeemably geriatric - and I know you're a few years younger than me! Even 35 years ago, 'Do you think he fancies me?' was the accepted phrase!
Josh ....
It is your absolute prerogative to decide what you find acceptable and what you find offensive, but you do need to take account of 'fashionable' English, whether or not you choose to use it yourself.
I admit that this sort of issue confuses me. I'm a language freak, and I know that language changes much faster than most people imagine. Logically, it shouldn't be a problem, but I have always felt that so-called 'realistic' films - Quentin Tarantino et al - do society no favours by using coarse language. I know that some - perhaps a lot - of people find it hard to construct a sentence without using 'fuck' or 'fucking' at least three times, but I doubt whether society derives any benefit from publicising that fact. But then, maybe I'm a closet geriatric!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
OMG, Saben's ruined our reputation in one fell swoop. How are we ever going to recover from this.
Shame on you Saben you should have known better.
Aussie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
But does the term "the hots for" come from America? Perhaps, but word origin is often quite clouded.
I don't know the origin of "gay" as a reference to homosexuality, but in my mind it smells more "American", much as "fag" seems far more American, "queer" is the more appropriate English insult, to me at least
I guess part of my bias in viewing "gay" as American is that in it's most recent iteration "gay" is most unabashedly American. "Gay" in the South Park generation context "Oh man, that looks SOOO gay, Kyle" is American and I assumed that "gay" came into common usage around the time of the gay liberation movement. I can't imagine 1930s closet homosexuals going to their private club-houses and referring to themselves as gay, but maybe I'm just unimaginative.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I guess to me I view message board text much as I do real-life speech between friends. I view most people on the message board as "friends" or at least acquaintances and I do use quite casual speech when speaking to friends in face-to-face contact.
To me, varying speech in response to social relationships is perhaps one of THE most important parts of speech. So much is communicated through not what you say, but HOW you say it. To me, formality and correctness of speech shows a lack of fondness towards the people with whom one is speaking. I would speak far more properly were I to be in a public venue than speaking to my friends at home. At home I just let it all hang out; slang, idioms, metaphors, in-jokes; anything goes. I guess part of the importance I place on social communication comes from my time in Japan, entire sentences change based on whether you are speaking to a friend, parent, boss or stranger. Other than that, though I guess it comes from attending a private school but being from a lower-income background. I had to learn "gutter-speak" to make friends around my local suburbs, but I was intelligent and could pull technical and formal shit out of my ass at will, should the situation require it.
That said, though, I still hold to the opinion that, often, but definitely in the minority of cases, ambiguity actually serves to better communicate ideas and, more importantly, emotion than crystal clear, perfectly pronounced or punctuated speech or text. I'm sure you probably don't disagree with me on that, but as you say, it's probably just our opinions of purpose of this community that differ.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
"hots for". Try "Bitch on heat"
"gay". consider "A bachelor gay"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does he have the hots for you? = Does he wish to have sexual relations with you? = None of your damn business, that is between him and me!
Maybe I am old fashioned, but I feel that this is the same as kissing and telling. If I have sexual desires for someone I am not going to communicate those thoughts to anyone but the intended (and probably not even then due to my insecurity).
Hugs, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Charlie.
I completely agree with you. If one of my close friends asked me that, I'd probably blush and turn away, then ask them to rephrase the question out of embaressment.
I agree with what you said^^ Thanks for that^^
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
agreed^_^
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Saben, it's obvious from your contributions that you know a bit about the subject, so you'll realise that dating a new word or a new usage of an existing word cannot be an exact science. Dating is almost inevitably retrospective, so the date ascribed to a word is usually the date of its first known appearance in writing, though in recent years some words have been dated from earlier usage in another media: radio, TV, film and even music have made contributions. The date ascribed to colloquial words will almost always be too late, because most words are adopted into colloquial speech well before anyone writes them down. But it's still a fascinating subject!
The jury is still out on 'hot' and 'hots' with the connotation of sexual attraction, because there are lots of ambiguous references which may or may not have that meaning. The usage probably originates from the racing term 'hot tip', which gave rise to parallel usage in phrases like 'hot news' and 'hot property', the latter term being often used in describing a successful actor or musician contracted to a particular manager. 'Hot' on its own appeared in popular magazines - especially those aimed at a young readership – in the late 1980s, as an adjective describing an artiste enjoying current success, or something which was the latest fashion. ‘What’s hot and what’s not’ was a much-used phrase. More recently it has been used specifically to describe someone who is sexually attractive, but as I said above there is an interval in which the usage was ambiguous. Sex probably got in on the act in the late 1990s. The noun usage "the hots" seems to have arisen a little later, and it almost certainly developed in the way you have already suggested. Because it has its origins in media usage, the sexual meaning spread widely and quickly, but on balance it most probably originated in the US.
The word 'queer', meaning 'homosexual', certainly originated in the US, and is first recorded in 1922 in a publication by the Children's Bureau of the Department of Labour: "A young man, easily ascertainable to be unusually fine in other characteristics, is probably queer in sexual tendency." So condemnation by stereotypes is nothing new! It was soon absorbed into British English. Use as a noun is recorded from the mid 1930s. In both Britain and the US it was almost invariably used in an insulting sense. In Britain, at least, the abbreviation 'homo' - though also used as an insult - was often used indulgently and was generally regarded as less objectionable than 'queer'.
'Gay' is especially interesting. It originated in the US, probably as early as the late 1600s, with the meaning 'sexually dissolute', and later 'earning a living as a prostitute'; it had no gender connotation. It's not clear when the earliest references meaning 'homosexual' arose; it may have been as early as the 1860s, but these references may possibly have meant 'effeminate' or possibly even 'ingenuous'. The word at that stage doesn't seem to have been regarded as offensive, and this remained true even when it almost certainly meant 'homosexual' in the early years of the 20th century. It was first recorded in print with the unequivocal meaning 'homosexual' in an US publication in 1933, still without any offensive implication, but though it appears occasionally over the next 20 years it doesn't seem to have acquired widespread currency. It isn't clear when it spread to British English, but it is recorded as a noun in 1953. It seems to have been an 'argot' word, used almost exclusively within the homosexual community. But now we come to the interesting bit! UK law discriminated against homosexuals in a fairly draconian ways, and the penalties suffered by those convicted seem incredible in comparison with the situation today. After the austerity and hardship of war, the 1950s saw a tremendous liberalisation of popular culture. There was a new sense of ‘rightness’ and ‘justice’, and in this atmosphere the seeds of the gay liberation movement were sown. Prosecution of well-known and respected figures such as the journalist Peter Wildeblood in 1954 aroused public opinion, and a Committee of Enquiry was set up, under the Chairmanship of Lord Wolfenden. The Wolfenden Report, published in 1957, was generally favourable, the crucial recommendation being the de-criminalisation of homosexual relationships between consenting adults over 21, except in the armed forces and provided that no third party was present. Despite the Wolfenden Report, the law was not immediately changed. The campaigners for equality appreciated the negative connotations of ‘homosexual’ and ‘queer’, and at some point in the late 1950s or early 1960s there was a deliberate move to adopt the word ‘gay’ as an acceptable synonym. It was in widespread use in the UK by the time that the Wolfenden recommendations – which had been fiercely opposed by some religious leaders and by sections of the judiciary – finally became law as The Sexual Offences Act 1967. By 1970 the term was in pretty well universal use among the UK gay community, and by the mid-1970s it had spread through most of the English-speaking world. So, although the etymology of the word begins in America, its world-wide use as a term of pride originates from a specific and deliberate act by the British gay community.
You’re right in suspecting that ‘South Park’ was probably instrumental in launching the use of ‘gay’ as a term meaning ‘embarrassingly bad’, though it appeared almost simultaneously in the UK, and was the subject of loud protest from the gay community when popular radio DJ Chris Moyles used the word to describe a mobile ringtone which he disliked. Personally, I think the gays scored an own goal by protesting, but some guys – and some gays - never learn!
Sorry this is so long, but I hope it’s interesting – words are a passion of mine!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... as Timmy said, context is important.
The quote comes from a report of a conversation between friends, so the context was colloquial. Different sets of friends may have different conversational conventions - that's up to them - but, IN CONTEXT, the phrase wasn't really offensive.
I suppose I'm trying to preach tolerance and understanding here. I rarely swear (though it has been known!) and I don't like to hear perfunctory swearing from others - but sometimes it's necessary to see the situation through the other guy's eyes. Similarly, I love the English language and I am as happy to use a colloquial style - as I usually do when posting - as the formal style which I have used professionally all my life. But friends are more important than language, and even when mangled English makes me cringe I'm never going to criticise anyone else - because the act of communication transcends the words we use.
I'm not in any way criticising you; I admire you for aspiring to higher-than-average standards - but tolerance is one hell of a virtue!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
