(no subject)
Good grief, I have finally found kindred spirits among the tubes of the internet. My introductory post shall be in three parts.
1. I have experienced considerable overlap between the set [pedantic people] and the set [writers]. Obviously this makes sense; both demographics thrive on the cultivation of deep respect and affection for words. I have started a community for the discerning writer who longs to give and receive critique more useful than "this is gud rite moar," and I wouldn't be surprised if many of you found it interesting. Please take a moment to check it out at
brutal_critters.
2. The misuse of the word "antisocial." People. This is not goddamn antisocial. This is goddamn antisocial.
3. I've labeled this concept "nominal descriptors," since nobody else seems to have come up with a name for it. I'd really like to get the opinions of some other people who are as linguistically geeky as I am.
I'm referring to what happens when a speaker or writer uses a descriptor for a facet of someone's identity -- "black," "homosexual," "female," "blonde," "Mexican," and so forth -- and uses it, not as an adjective as is generally accepted, but as a noun. Describing someone as "a black," "a Mexican," "a male." For some reason, the use of these descriptors as nouns carries a strong negative connotation, whereas their use as adjectives does not.
I interpret it thus: A thing can have many traits, but only one nature. To use an adjective to describe a person is to label one facet of who they are; to describe them with a noun is to presume to define the whole of their self with that single identity. It is as if that single trait -- double-X chromosome, extra melanin, predisposition to initiate intimacy with members of the same biological sex -- sets them as members of a group, and from this membership, we can infer everything else about them.
Take, for example, these two sentences.
"She is blonde."
"She is a blonde."
On an explicit level, the meaning is the same. But the connotations of the sentences, I would venture to say, are quite different; while one speaks to nothing deeper than the subject's hair color, the other invokes a myriad of stereotypes about her.
Can any of you offer insight as to the basis of this syntactic phenomenon? I would appreciate any and all ideas.
I'm terribly sorry for having gotten this long-winded on my first post. Please don't beat me with the pretentious bat.
1. I have experienced considerable overlap between the set [pedantic people] and the set [writers]. Obviously this makes sense; both demographics thrive on the cultivation of deep respect and affection for words. I have started a community for the discerning writer who longs to give and receive critique more useful than "this is gud rite moar," and I wouldn't be surprised if many of you found it interesting. Please take a moment to check it out at
brutal_critters.
2. The misuse of the word "antisocial." People. This is not goddamn antisocial. This is goddamn antisocial.
3. I've labeled this concept "nominal descriptors," since nobody else seems to have come up with a name for it. I'd really like to get the opinions of some other people who are as linguistically geeky as I am.
I'm referring to what happens when a speaker or writer uses a descriptor for a facet of someone's identity -- "black," "homosexual," "female," "blonde," "Mexican," and so forth -- and uses it, not as an adjective as is generally accepted, but as a noun. Describing someone as "a black," "a Mexican," "a male." For some reason, the use of these descriptors as nouns carries a strong negative connotation, whereas their use as adjectives does not.
I interpret it thus: A thing can have many traits, but only one nature. To use an adjective to describe a person is to label one facet of who they are; to describe them with a noun is to presume to define the whole of their self with that single identity. It is as if that single trait -- double-X chromosome, extra melanin, predisposition to initiate intimacy with members of the same biological sex -- sets them as members of a group, and from this membership, we can infer everything else about them.
Take, for example, these two sentences.
"She is blonde."
"She is a blonde."
On an explicit level, the meaning is the same. But the connotations of the sentences, I would venture to say, are quite different; while one speaks to nothing deeper than the subject's hair color, the other invokes a myriad of stereotypes about her.
Can any of you offer insight as to the basis of this syntactic phenomenon? I would appreciate any and all ideas.
I'm terribly sorry for having gotten this long-winded on my first post. Please don't beat me with the pretentious bat.