Klarinet Archive - Posting 000139.txt from 2005/11

From: William Kelly <kell0786@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] The Use of English
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:28:02 -0500

-I haven't tallied the number of people who have objected. You may be
correct. No, significant numbers have not responded one way or the other,
but keep in mind that only a small group of the people on this list even
partake in any conversation.
-I would never have brought up the US Constitution, but someone else
thought it necessary to make a trivial point about it that I needed to
clear up.
-I think you mistake my point about declaring one's own righteousness. It
was in the matter of his loud and needless asserion of his high ideals
while at the same time saying idiotic things about "most men." Something
about it doesn't add up to me. I did not say he was being dogmatically
self-righteous about his position on vulgarity. I did not say or suggest
that anyone was being self-righteous. You are quiet correct that some of
you offered defenses of you position; I offered mine. I don't think anyone
is being dogmatic in this case, and I find it odd that you feel the need to
defend yourself against an imaginary accusation and accuse me of such.
-It's absurd that you find it an offense that I don't want to swear in a
public forum. I'm glad you identify shades of meaning in profanity. Of
course that is true, although I think there's a lot less potential than you
think. It doesn't matter, since the point is, in public places certain
things, for example, very profane language, have always been considered out
of bounds. Our society has been coarsened quite a bit in recent decades,
but I submit that we try to keep our language elevated, even though we may
sacrifice what is (no doubt!) the great poetic weight of vulgarity.
Don't make dumb comparisions with Newspeak. It's an insult to Orwell. In a
place that is meant to be a public forum, your desire for coarsened
expression has always, and almost always still does (at least in the US)
yeild to the more widespread desire to not have vulgar language in common
use. I don't know how many people objected, although I suspect most people
would, but that doesn't matter either. The fact that a few have is in my
mind enough such that any remotely polite person would be considerate and
not send people emails with profane language.
And thank you for your diligence in maintaing the purity of my expression
in your quote. I hope you're not being snide!

On 9 Nov 2005, Matthew Lloyd wrote:
> As one who supported the Joseph's use of "that word", I'm not sure that
> "large numbers of folks" have objected. I don't even thing a significant
> number of list members have responded one way or the other.
>
> Also please remember that some of us are not governed by the United
> States Constitution, and that certainly some in that group are far from
> sorry that we are not.
>
> Your mother might well have thought you (and those who have suggested
> "that word" should never be used) are loudly declaring your own
> righteousness. I don't know - I've never met her. But it seems a
> possibility to me. You are stating as a fact that Joseph's use of the
> word is "unwarranted". Joseph and I both indicated that in our
> respective opinions the word was used appropriately. It isn't those that
> support the use of "that word" who are being dogmatic, is it?
>
> For myself, I find tiptoeing around the issue of language by using
> phrases such as "that word" to be more offensive than any use of the
> word itself. English is a language that can be used in so many ways,
> with so many shades of meaning. Sometimes it is appropriate to use
> brutal language for effect, or at least I hope this is the case.
> Dogmatic assertions such as your "the idea of "shock-value" is a
> denigration of
> language, as it seeks to intimidate some and arouse others; to appeal to
> people's fears and to their aggressiveness, not the their intellects,
> and
> as such [ought]* not to be considered a healthy or legitimate use of
> language" serve, as I see it, to limit the language in a way that I
> would suggest is unhealthy. You know the idea, if the words aren't
> available, you can't think the offensive thought? Shades of Newspeak?
>
> I always find it odd that "folks" in America pride themselves on being
> in the land of the free, and then tell you what you can and cannot
> say.......
>
> Matthew
>
> * Please excuse my editing here. I assumed that this was a typo and
> corrected it. As can be seen, the original read "out", for any who wish
> to maintain the purity of the quotation!
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org