I'm curious all of your thoughts are on keeping up with the current meanings of words.

It used to take a fair amount of time for words to change meaning; but that has been accelerating for some time...now I feel even more so with the internet/social media.

I try not to write lyrics using the slang and vernacular as it tends to become "dated" rather quickly. Also, slang terms can be rather localized in some cases so again, a good reason not the use them writing.

That's my personal preference. I seem to recall quite a few songs that did use such things.

I agree, depending on the genre of music. Obviously some rely heavily on the use of ultra-current or even inventive wording as part of the appeal.

However, I'm with you. I try to place it more to the "timeless" side of lyrics when possible.



Great point. Especially with the internet, and now anyone having a global reach!

I mean it more from the perspective of a danger of writing thinking you are saying one thing and it could mean something VERY different.

I think that would be a very real issue when writing songs for a language other than your own if you are not fluent in the language. Idioms and phrases in other languages can be very tricky.

Perfect example:

Practically everyone remembers the milk commercials where the folks, including a beautiful young woman drinks a glass of milk and has a "milk mustache".....well....The milk industry ran into a huge faux pas with their "GOT MILK?" campaign. It worked really fine in English.... but when they translated it into Spanish, they didn't bother to get a Spanish speaking native to check it. Unfortunately for the milk industry what they thought was asking "Got Milk?" was actually asking... "Are you lactating" and it was highly offensive to the Spanish speaking world, especially the women.

That aside, you also run the risk of having your audience fail to comprehand what might be a key part of your lyric if that idiom is completely foreign to the listener. Kinda like not understanding the punchline to a joke.

Given that our songs are heard only by a few forum folks, family and friends I never think about how topical the lingo might be. And concern over this would imply that the song has "legs" which I don't think will ever happen with our transient efforts. Self deprecating? Yeah, but based on our reality of writing/recording a song just for the fun of it, throwing it on the forum and moving on to await the next relatively rare appearance of the Muse.

Echoing everyone above, it's something to be aware of and perhaps we should ponder a bit after the song is written, looking at those phrases to see if they are dated or fads. "XXX rules!" is something I edited out recently. I had to rewrite that whole part, but better that than be passe', in the song's context.

Something I also consider, is gender and sexual preference. In a particular song's context is it important?; "..hmmm...let me think about that..." I find myself leaning masculine all the time with heroes and characters, when in a particular song, let the women have some attention, too!

If I write a song more socially aimed, I try to be inclusive, avoiding anything religious, gender, sexual orientation, the same way I would never make racial slurs.

Of course, there are no rules and it's up to the song writer. Bravery is required for honesty sometimes.

Bud, in my opinion, probably nailed it. Just because we make something available to the world, doesn't mean the world is taking the time to listen...and really isn't typically.

Therefore, probably not much of an issue.

Makes me think about the Jim Stafford song, "My Girl, Bill".

It surely shows how important the comma can be in the English language. I remember falling out of my seat laughing when the song got to the end. I didn't know where it was going until that point, and considering the time frame it came out, well... (not that there's anything wrong with that - which itself is a Seinfeld line that you will either get or not, depending upon if you watched Seinfeld).

<< I mean it more from the perspective of a danger of writing thinking you are saying one thing and it could mean something VERY different. >>

An obvious danger sign is when I see a song along with a comment of "no offense intended. This is tongue in cheek and meant to be funny." type disclaimer added. If you write something and feel the need to add a disclaimer, you have not written a good work. Your job is not finished and more work needs to be done. Write for clarity. If something can be interpreted wrong. It will be. If a phrase is a double edged sword, someone will feel as if they have been cut by your words.

I've started reading my posts (and lyrics) as if they were tweets. Nothing takes down smart people who should know better than an ill-timed or poorly worded tweet.

Charlie

I agree with most of what has been said.

On the other hand I sometimes write songs that have little relationship with "modern, current and the like".

I like to write blues songs using expressions that would only have been generally understood, say back in the 1930's. Only those people who are well versed in the history of blues lyrics would likely understand the actual meaning of some of the phrases. So...the target listener, would be someone who like this style and era of blues music. I also use expressions that are typical of speech patterns common in southern black culture. Some of those expressions are in fact easy to understand as far as the words and their meaning go, but may not be recognizable as a "southern black culture common expression".

Every group of people has words that identify them as belong to that group. "Y'all come on over" as opposed to "yous guys" for example. So...the use of some words would make certain groups of folks feel comfortable.

As most forums are available to almost all countries and cultures the probability of offending someone is pretty high no matter how careful one is in word choice.

The fact that some expression written in one language and then translated to another is offensive (where no offense was meant)is the fault of the translator. Too expect all expressions, especially idiomatic expressions to directly translate from one language to another indicates a serious lack of understanding of language in general.

As this forum is well controlled for obviously offensive language, in English at least, we don't have to deal with the issue very much. A good thing in my opinion.

Personally, I am rarely offended by what people sing or talk about. There are exceptions.

I also am not put off by the use of idiomatic expressions that I don't know the meaning off. If the song interest me I will go try to find out what the expressions really mean.

I try not to write songs that I know will offend people. I don't want to make people unhappy on purpose. Sometimes that is not possible. Sometimes I write protest songs about the effects of war and I am sure some would find those songs uncomfortable to listen to. Not everything in life is pleasant.

We all have one great freedom, we can turn things off!

Cheers,

Billy

Planobilly, I do understand what you are saying. I'm not talking about being overly sensitive and PC. I'm talking about what our responsibility as writers is to know what words current meaning is.

An over-used example would be someone writing a song today with lyrics like "I'm gay! I'm gay! I'm as gay as a man can be!" and thinking the term "gay" to mean happy. Yes, it can mean that. There is also another meaning of it today. Not there's anything wrong with that. (jford...I LOVE Seinfeld!)

I'm not the lyric police by a LONG shot. Just curious people's thoughts on if we should be aware of things like that?

Herb's example was fantastic. In THAT case, they REALLY should have known FIRST!

Here, I get, probably not as urgent

I'm not just playing hypothetical. I've witnessed a few things here that made me wonder "is THAT what they really meant? Nah...really?"

Life is good. This isn't a huge deal by any means. Just a conversation I thought fun to have

One trend I've noticed is the ever increasing use of coarse, vulgar words in songs played on radio. Labels use to distribute "radio mixes" where vulgarity was either bleeped or scrambled. Letting something slip through would get an employee fired and a station fined or license pulled. It seems strange to me that a radio station chain can have enough influence for artists to modify songs to mention a "radio brand" but not enough respect for their fans to do the same.

I kind of like hearing songs that have 'dated' lyrics in them. It brings you back to that period of time a little bit, good for reminiscing.

Example I'm thinking of at the moment is Aerosmith with "Love in an Elevator" from the 80s.

"She said 'I'll show you how to fax
In the mail room, honey'."

I think that it "should be" self evident that everyone has the responsibility to understand the meaning of words and expressions they use in songs or any form of communication for that matter. The rapidly changing nature of the meaning of some words makes the job more difficult for sure. While there may be "no excuse for not knowing something is illegal" LOL we should not be too hard on someone for using a word that could be construed to have more that one meaning.

There should be an equally important responsibility to consider the environment where those songs are released. It is inappropriate to release vulgar and sexually orientated songs for example here on PG Music. It is also inappropriate to release the type of music we generate here on some "gangster rap" site.

There may exist "legal freedom of speech" but one can not say anything they want in any environment they choose.

I also think that everyone reading or hearing the words in a song has some responsibility to understand their meaning, and the context in which they were written.

In general, for songs to have a wider acceptance, a certain adherence to using words that are widely understood can be important.
There are also many convoluted but interesting ways to express some idea. The line from a Dylan Thomas poem comes to mind. "The force that through the green fuze drives the flower" I for one do not want to be relegated to only the most common expressions.

Music/songs has always been a very important form of communication. The fact that a song has or does not have a wide distribution does not make it any less important to the people who get to listen to it.

Many people on this site have created songs that made my life better. Many were beautiful and some were humorous. All had the effect of enriching my life.

Here is a change in word meaning I just learned.

“Tool” used to mean something you dug up the garden with. Today, it also means someone who’s not intelligent enough to realize they are being used or taken advantage of.

Who would have thunk it...lol

Sorry for wandering around so much on this thread. The use of words always get my attention.

Cheers,
Billy

Really good fodder...I love this forum and this thread is a good example of why. Thank you, Hear To Learn, for starting it. It's good, for me at least, to push the gray-matter a little and think and sort and stew on things.

Steve, exactly. Songs put me right in the place and time where I first heard them. Freshman at Univ of Wyoming where my best friend from high school brought in an album from a "who's that?" band. Their songs changed the landscape of the music industry. 5 years later he was working with them at Columbia Records.

A younger person today might not get references to '68 - 1975, disco, "Give peace a chance," or have the visual of the "Keep on Trucking" guy and his big shoe. Good Times vans. But I do.

Writing a whole song now using jargon from then is an interesting idea...unique. Most of my folk music crowd are in or near my age and would get it and see the humor and live in those moments with me.

I was writing a song about my former kidney stone, but "1975" might be a more interesting writing experiment. Though, "Once I had a pearl, deep inside of me.." is pretty attractive.

Later, dude...gotta book.

Just a quick thought here.

I think the vernacular of a song has a lot to do with the culture of your intended/target audience. When I listen to some of of the contemporary R&B, there are words and phrases that make no sense to me if applied in their common definition but the audience fro whom the song is intended knows exactly what is meant. Each social/demographic group uses idioms that are normal and common to them but may not may make sense to folks of a different group.

If you think most of your target audience will easily understand your lyric, you're good to go. It's my opinion that knowing your audience is equally as important as your technical knowledge of writing a lyric.

Good luck to everyone with their music!

Alan

I do too. That's not at all what I'm talking about. To me, I love the feeling you can get from a song that brings you back to a time or place. There are even songs that I haven't heard, or weren't even alive for that can do that for me. I heard a song from the 50's or 60's and feel like, "man, that sounds like such a great time" and picture being there.

What I am talking about is using dated terms in a song that is written today and NOT being ironic or trying to sound like you were from a specific time.

As an example, I saw briefly a song in the showcase that looks like it is paying tribute to the Beach Boys. I haven't listened to it yet, but wouldn't be surprised if it used terminology/lyrics from that area. That would make perfect sense to me...to the point of I would be surprised if it DIDN'T have those elements.

I'm talking about something along these lines...

"back in the day" a "Hot wife" would mean a married woman who was above warm.

At some point "hot" meant "attractive." So, if someone said "She's a hot wife" it meant so was an attractive, married woman.

To a large number of people, today "Hot Wife" is a married woman who is allowed to have relationships with other men!

So...if you are writing a song today, unaware of the current meaning of the word, writing a song about your "Hot wife" may get some unexpected reactions.

Posting it on these forums would just be odd then.

I've seen pretty close to this type of situation happen on here several times. I don't believe it was the writer's intent on most of them. I'm going to emphasize again, "most" of them.

I hope that clarifies it without specifically calling the songs out. Sometimes I think we just need to be a bit more aware of this kind of thing. Just my opinion.

Now I'm going to have a listen to "Love in an Elevator." I have always loved the drumming in that song. The toms...on my, the tom sound! I love that!

I am still trying to figure out what itchin like a man in a fuzzy tree means.

Once I get that down, I will move on to 2017.

I think some of the lyrics on the radio today are about nasty sex, but I can't quite tell for sure. It's kind of vague.

I think some of the Rolling Stones lyrics from the 1960's/1970's were about nasty sex, but I can't quite tell for sure. It's kind of vague.

Hint: Rock & Roll is ALL about nasty sex.

David

Fuzzy things make some people - like me - itch horribly bad. Thus being an itchy man in a fuzzy tree would be a curse to me! You might analogize it to a person with bad allergies (an itchy person) in a field of ragweed.

But there are a lot of things being said these days I don't understand - and, contrary to popular belief, I'm semi-intelligent. Since I've moved to the deep South (Alabama) from the Midwest, sometimes it's like learning a new language! They say things down here that leave me in a stupor after I hear them!

Best to you.

Alan

Tell a good story that evolves through the song. What a particular word may mean in the future should be the last of your worries.

We fully agree. Few songs, even those by the best writers and composers, become perennial blockbusters. If it catches the mood for the moment in time, that works for us. We would much rather be entertained by a great story with a technical/musical glitch here and there. if you have a good story and decent music-lyric prosody and the vocal is pretty much on pitch ... you got a couple of fans here. Man y of those outdated references in the lyric or musical style take me back a real good place on many occasions. It's always a good trip.

If you look at our signature block, you'll see our thoughts about striving for perfection. My grandpa was a pretty smart old guy - died in 1966 when I was in Vietnam and very often miss his wise council and silly sense of humour.

Best to all,

Alan & Di

And it's not a worry. I'm talking about what a word means NOW...as in, NOT the future!

I'm seeing recent lyrics being written on the forum using words from decades ago where the meaning of the word has changed since then.

That was my point...although frequently lost somehow.

I guess, not my problem Life is good by me. I've said my peace

I think it might be a matter of why the song was written a particular way, lyrically. Di and I write quite a few songs that are meant to sound like sixties rock and forties big band. We try to write them as they would have been written at the time, both lyrically and musically. Some of the sixties rock lyrics are pretty cheesy by today's standards and used a vernacular/vocabulary reminiscent of the era of the song. Also, the same word can mean something different in varying geographic locations. I'm originally from St. Louis. Since having moved to the South, I've heard expressions used down here, quite frequently, I've not heard in the Midwest in years. The culture in some parts of the country, including language, doesn't change as quickly as it does in other areas.

That said, I do agree that some songs that are contemporary do use some dated terms. But it doesn't matter all that much to me. Just tell me a good story with some decent licks behind it and I'm okay.

Wishing you the best,

Alan

I make an effort to avoid utilising slang and vernacular in my songs because they have a tendency to seem antiquated very soon. Slang terminology may often be rather localised, which is another strong reason not to use them in writing. That's what I favour personally. I think I can think of quite a few tunes that did make advantage of such elements.

Also, it's not a concern. I'm speaking of the current word changer meaning of a term, NOT its meaning in the future! On the forum, I'm seeing lyrics that were composed recently yet contain phrases that were first used decades ago but now have a different meaning. That was my thesis, although one that I usually missed.

Talk about thread necromancy! This thread died 5 years ago!

Welcome dueltmp.

We all start somewhere, and finding an existing thread of common interest is as good a place as any to start. There are no rules as to how new an existing thread has to be to participate. This is generally a great community of like-minded people, so feel free to join in, learn and contribute wherever / whenever you want.

Again, welcome

You are so interesting to read. Here such creative people gathered

Very beautiful tune. I want to listen more and more

[spam account deleted]

Seems the exhumation has produced a zombie. Very specific newbie discussion on a particular issue containing a link to a program related to songwriting & language whilst another freshly disinterred newbie offers a pair of completely unrelated comments with sales link at the bottom. Nevertheless it's an interesting thread with elements of lawn defence as well as self awareness.

Some new meanings don't deserve to be given currency though. I know it marks me as a stick in the mud but the old, old slang term "p.i.m.p.", (interesting: the BIAB text screener doesn't allow [*****]), was update a decade or so ago from a procurer to mean renovate/renew/reinvigorate, (with assumed reference to p.i.m.p. sartorial fashion in exploitation films of the 70s), but it's previous meaning really doesn't allow me to accept anything new...the mud stuck.

You think everyone has the right to write everything they like in the forum. And I have no such right? Thank you very much for your conclusion!

Ray can sometimes be rather brusque. Take no notice.

Welcome to the fora.

Most of us here are friendly and helpful, at least most of the time.

I think it's fair to just say that "Most of us here are friendly and helpful"-period

The comment I referred to is: "Very beautiful tune. I want to listen more and more."

Please enlighten me as to how this fits the thread? I couldn't find any songs posts which made the comment seems misplaced and brought the one above it into question...added to the two posts rather than an amended single. The appearance was of a bot drop. The link in the signature section amplified this appearance.

Clearly I'm wrong and am happy to acknowledge that.
There are the posts though, how do they relate?
I think you'll find I'm mostly friendly and helpful.
Brusque? I'll wear it as it's from Gordon.

I suggest anyone aggrieved by my above post reread it in the context of the preceding ones on this page.

When odium is on the podium and the hypocrite fronts the lectern,
The sermon will be sophistry as the war machines return.

Wrong? Nah. That one was quite obviously a spammer. Nonsense comments totally unrelated to the subject at hand with a link to some kind of shady sounding legal document website.

The first one might have resurrected a long-dead thread, but at least said something germane.

Thanks Byron,
Hey AudioTrack & Gordon Scott, have you noted that the account has been closed as it has been assessed as spam?

For the record, I hadn't made any reference to that particular post. But yes, I note it has been removed.

I've occasionally been grumpy myself, so felt I ought to qualify it a bit. Honest, but grumpy

I hadn't and I agreed with your initial assessment that it probably was spam. My alarm bells rang with the same phrase yours did. I just gave a little more benefit of that doubt.

Late to this post ... and I guess, the spam.

But anyway, 'would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?'

Curmudgeon as I may be, I'm never going along with the hookah smoking caterpillar. Words mean what they mean as they were first meant. If you want to stop using the word 'Grandfather' and use 'legacy' instead, as the recent Stanford list of 'offensive' words suggests, that's your prerogative. I'm keepin' my Granpappy.

That is not at all true — and never was.

Nope. If it were true, we'd all still be speaking Proto Indo-European.

Meanings change with usage often for the worst but also for the better.
Etymology is fun but also a form of necrophilia if it's used to cling to a the rotting corpse of a word.
Grandfather has it's own problems:
a) grand (adj.)

late 14c., grant "large, big" (early 12c. in surnames), from Anglo-French graunt and directly from Old French grant, grand (10c., Modern French grand) "large, tall; grown-up; great, powerful, important; strict, severe; extensive; numerous," from Latin grandis "big, great; full, abundant," also "full-grown;" figuratively "strong, powerful, weighty, severe," of unknown origin.

In Vulgar Latin it supplanted magnus and continued in the Romanic languages. The connotations of "noble, sublime, lofty, dignified," etc., were in Latin. In English it developed a special sense of "imposing." Meaning "principal, chief, most important" (especially in titles) is from 1560s; that of "of very high or noble quality" is from 1712. As a general term of admiration, "magnificent, splendid," from 1816. Related: Grander; grandest.

Grand jury is late 15c. Grand piano from 1797. The grand tour of the principal sites of continental Europe, as part of a gentleman's education, is attested by that name from 1660s. The Grand Canyon of the Colorado River in western U.S. was so called by 1869, popularized by Maj. John Wesley Powell, scientific adventurer, who explored it; earlier it had been known as Big Canyon. For grand slam see slam (n.2).
Bringing PC into the discussion is conflation.
&
b) grandfather (n.)

early 15c., from grand- + father (n.), probably on analogy of French grand-père. Replaced grandsire and Old English ealdefæder. Grandfather clause originally (1899) referred to exemptions from post-Reconstruction voting restrictions (literacy, property tax) in the U.S. South for men whose forebears had had the right to vote before 1867 (thus allowing poor and illiterate whites to continue to vote). Grandfather clock is from 1894, originally grandfather's clock (1876), "a furniture dealer's name" [OED] from "My Grandfather's Clock," the 1876 song by Henry Clay Work that was enormously popular (and loathed) in late 1870s. It indicates that they were beginning to seem old-fashioned; they were previously known as tall case clocks or eight-day clocks.

Nearly every word in nearly every language (including emojis and emoticons) now has "problems". We're all going to the other place in an environmentally friendly mode of transport.

I suspect the "problems" were built into the design.
Etymology is one of the culprits as it exposes origins good & bad, recent and distant.
I did an etymology session with my classes each week...looking into the week's spelling words. It was always illuminating, often amusing and occasionally shocking.

Yeah, I like to study ants too. (Ducks and runs for cover)

And occasionally "how on Earth did we get here from there?"

Children aged eight to twelve don't mind it at all in my experience.
Weekly they'd each have to find the etymology, (they were given the links to online etymology dictionaries within their digital version of the work sent to them via their school email address. They could submit the work digitally or on paper. They also had pre school access to computers in the room if they had no gear or access at home), of three words they chose from their personal spelling list, (30 kids, 30 lists: no child required to waste time on words they already knew & no child to skip words they didn't know from previous "levels". Some kids had 30 words almost all of their own choosing - quite often new words from the novel we were currently studying - while another might have five because they struggled with literacy. Each list was private, each child mapped their own progress via pretest & test graphs on paper and in a personal spreadsheet that only the individual and I had access to), and then read the most interesting to the class. We'd talk about each one offered, the dark history, the modern variations, the slang, euphemisms (that was a particularly interesting aspect - in most parts of NSW public school students ask to "go to the toilet" rather than the bathroom - why hide what you mean?), etc.
Etymology was, then, part of public speaking, discussion, exchange of ideas/perspectives, reading, linguistics, spelling, handwriting, typing/word processing, mathematics and technology use.
Any that were disengaged and wanted to run for cover had their lists reviewed as lack of success was, more often than not, the reason for avoidance.

It is entirely true - and always has been.

That doesn't mean that the meaning of words don't/ can't change over time. It simply means that when uttered or written by the originator, the originator knew what they meant.

So if you care to listen to lyrics or read a passage from something created years ago, you will only understand if you know the meaning of the word as it was meant ... not what it may or may not mean contemporarily.

Your confusing the evolution of language with the fact that at any point in time any word had specific meanings. It could have had more than one, but if there were not a significant number of like users it would be meaningless.

If there were no anchor points of meaning we would all be uttering gibberish and you would be unable to disagree with me.

That's not what you said.

In fact that was exactly what I said. You are misconstruing "... first said ..." to include an additional meaning of immutable.

There is, however, an additional important layer of meaning discussed in this thread to encompass considerations falling generally under the rubric of 'political correctness.'

Irrespective of ones views in such debate, the 'cancellation' of a word in social discourse has nothing to do with the meaning of the word per se. It is simply that some would censor the word due to disaffection for that meaning ... even if that disaffection reflects a subjective interpretation as defined by the objectors.

The options appear to be 'shut your mouth' or embrace the Tower of Babel, hoping something you said today doesn't turn out tomorrow to bite you in the donkey.

The creation of new complexities in social life and technical knowledge in the vastly expanding world population constantly gives occasion to either borrow an old word for a new application or come up with a new word. Regardless, old words still carry their meanings despite evolving nuance and context.

You did type "...Words mean what they mean as they were first meant..." without any caveats or clarification.
Your words meant what you meant but they didn't mean that to others who didn't know the context you were placing them in when your typed them.
That context isn't clear in your text.
Your explanation is good & reasonable but the problem with the written word, even when "emojified", is that is means what the reader reads.

Yes, of course it is always as the reader understands it.

And thank you for your acknowledgement that my 'explanation' is good and reasonable.

But what about the context or clarification of those commenting that I was baldly wrong? Did they qualify their context ... or were they simply reacting to my other statement regarding the Standford's committee relegating 'grandfather' to naughty?

In any case, no post would ever be finished were we all required to provide the entire context and clarification of our thoughts expressed by words to every reader's satisfaction.

You have supplied some interesting etymology, and while no expert myself, I have some difficulties with your presentation with respect to how it relates to the meaning of words, as opposed to the origin.

You first mention that p.i.m.p. has changed its meaning. But in doing so you replace a noun, 'a p.i.m.p.' with with a verb, 'to p.i.m.p' or gerund, 'p.i.m.p.ing.' When the morning fish wrap reports "authorities arrested J. Edgar Hoosier, a local p.i.m.p.," we don't think he was p....mping his new line of fashion eyeglasses, do we?

Similarly with g.r.a.n.d.f.t.h.e.r (not sure what the censors are watching!), you provide the etymology of the word, but then you note a particular legal usage of the word, 'Grandfathered,' which means those enjoying certain extant rights/ privileges, are not subject to new legal regulation infringing upon pre-existing practice ... similar, but not equivalent, to prohibition of 'ex post facto' laws.

What you present is a particular and peculiar usage which may or may not creep into common parlance. As far as I can understand, grandfather has always meant what it first meant in the English language, regardless of whether or not it has acquired other usage.

So to return to the ex post facto cherry picking of canceling some words because somewhere in the past they were used in the service of discrimination or some ill deed real or imagined, is in my opinion the mental equivalent of the Taliban destroying the Bamyan Buddha statues.

Finally, please kindly provide me an example of an English word that no longer means what it originally meant. I do acknowledge that in the '60s some said, "Wow, that's really bad!," when acknowledging something they admired, but we all still know what bad means.

Sick, random, awesome, [*****], cool, silk and so on.

"p.i.m.p." now means to upgrade, aggrandize, to renovate and not, necessarily, in the garish "threads" of the late 60s and early 70s.

The Banyan statues were destroyed in the way religions historically seek to eliminate their rivals for purposes of retaining power, preventing dissent and through a lack of respect for art...even if/when the art is a device for proselytising and propaganda.

Your unwillingness to concede & your seeming desire to apply all manner of sophistry to justify yourself marks you as someone who doesn't alter opinion.

Enjoy.

I think you meant to say 'p.i.m.p. now also means to say ...,' as it unquestionably continues to mean what it has meant in common parlance.

Ahh ... concede is it? Of course, no one ever attempted to destroy ideas or language as means of eliminating their ideological rivals for the purposes of retaining power, preventing dissent and through a lack of respect for intellectual discourse. Or use 'sophisticated' name calling in such pursuit?

Yes, my opinions are well established, as yours seem to be. Your resort to accusing me of "all manner of sophistry" in critiquing what in my opinion is your confounding of etymology and meaning suggests a simple avoiding of supporting your thought.

Again, please, anyone please give me one, just one example of an English word that no longer means what it originally meant.

As a final note on the ludicrous Stanford Project and the 1872 'grandfather,' please note that a despicable book, 'Mein Kampf,' both in the original language and when translated is filled with pronouns, articles and all manner of vocabulary and linguistic construction. Perhaps the Stanford Project should recommend us excising all found there as well?

Grandfather is not an example of a name falling out of usage. It is a concerted effort to remove a word in common and continuing usage because some hyper-sensitives have discovered an obscure usage deemed objectionable from their political viewpoint. The project's 'legacy' will be the folly and scorn it so richly deserves.

I've had my say and thoroughly enjoyed it. But now I've better things to do. That is, unless someone finds that word that no longer means what it meant.

Peace

What you said, exactly, was "Words mean what they mean as they were first meant," [emphasis mine] quite clearly implying that the meaning thereof does not and can not change.

Had you at the time further related that comment to looking at a text (in context of this discussion, a song lyric) through the lens of Historical Criticism, then you would likely have not garnered the responses you received but you did not. Only your subsequent protestations suggest this is the case.




A cursory search will reveal numerous examples.

Thank you, Byron.

I will concede that that is exactly what I wrote and that the implication you point up is reasonable.

However, an implication is not an assertion.

You can read what I wrote with that implication that the meaning of a word never changes. In my view it is the usage, not the meaning that changes. Which, means that new usage adds additional or nuanced meaning to the original word.

You can also read what I wrote as asserting that when a speaker or writer first spoke or wrote a word it had an intended meaning that is unchangeable ... regardless of whether it was correctly perceived by the listener or reader. Even were the speaker or writer to later change their opinion of or use of a word and engage in different usage, that would not change the meaning of the prior use.

Obviously no one, myself included, enjoys being simply told 'you're wrong.' Had someone asked, 'are you saying meaning and usage of a word never change,' this probably would have gone in a different direction.

The history of usage of a word from its initial meaning is interesting and necessary to what to me is more important, what the speaker meant at the time he used it.

And, so, I'll never be singing 'My legacy's clock was too large for the shelf ...'

Concession:
"Obviously no one, myself included, enjoys being simply told 'you're wrong.' Had someone asked, 'are you saying meaning and usage of a word never change,' this probably would have gone in a different direction."
I read somewhere, recently, that we can't include all context in a simple piece of text.
Is it some sort "feelings" thing to be hurt by having an error pointed out.

"In fact that was exactly what I said. You are misconstruing "... first said ..." to include an additional meaning of immutable."
You make the case for me.

When at 1st we misconstrue you take the wee from me & you.

You seem to hate in others what you see within yourself.

Does PG Music believe in nominative determinism?

Now, down to the point of these forums:computer aided creativity.

Axiom: Beware the bath bubbles of soapy sophistry for each bubble contains a Barking Spider to foul the waters.

My goodness, are we feeling a bit touchy?

I conceded to Byron that I had used the word "first," as he noted that that implied immutability.

And as you have no doubt read in the post immediately prior to your most recent one here, I agreed that there was a reasonable implication that that was what I meant.

However, as you have also undoubtedly read, there is an alternative reading that doesn't mean that at all.

My concession was to Byron, not my view on the meaning of words.

Given how you've elected to read what I wrote, I see I neglected to add 'when you're not,' to the end of 'Nobody like to be told,"You're wrong."


Regardless, it seems odd that you feel the need to construe "dislike" into the emotion of "hate" and seeming imply I'm engaging in the classic psychological defense mechanism of projection.

And then as in your prior post you again engage in ad hominum attack with your "barking spider" ditty.

I'm puzzled. You seem bright enough to defend your ideas with out such resort.

Suffice it to say you haven't. Nor have you been able to provide a single word in the English language that no longer means what it meant.

I wish you could be a little more transparent about your viewpoint so we could discuss it as adults.

Apparently, it also means that you can take things entirely out of context and use it as an excuse to blather on and on and on and on and…

Personally, I write songs using the English language, occasionally using the word 'cause' instead of 'because'. Unless the listener is irascible, they'll know what you're saying and be acquiescent of the wording.

P.S. In English "Go throw some hay over the fence to my cows"
In French "Go throw over the fence my cow some hay"


Kajun Jeaux

This is actually quite funny that the author of "This is not true - and never was," instead of providing any rational support for his assertion simply demeans by calling my replies "blather."

Perhaps he could provide even a single, critical example of a word that no longer means what it once did?

https://www.rd.com/list/words-changed-meaning/
https://artandhome.net/words-that-have-changed-meaning/

Gordon, thank you.

I've read both your links. It seems I've ruffled feathers because some think I've somehow said words never change what they once meant. I think I actually said they mean what they first meant.

I think it is most accurate to say that that is true, but that usage changes.

In the Reader's Digest examples of 'unbelievable' and 'fizzle' this is well illustrated. These are both examples of words whose original meanings persist ... or else how could the writer define what they originally meant, but now have change usage. Unbelievable has gone according to the author from 'lying' to 'hard to believe.' Fizzle had gone from the 'escaping gas' as in a carbonated beverage to something in the process of 'failing' or 'playing out.' Actually, I think most commonly uses as 'fizzled out'... as happens when your soda goes flat.

I think in both examples the changing usage is quite clearly an understandable progression of usage. And, were you to read or hear sung anything created when the earlier meaning was dominant, you would need to know that meaning to understand ... which would be what it meant when first used.

It is one thing for language to organically evolve. It is another to promote a politically motivated cancellation of words to promote a particular ideology.

I think they are adept at that in authoritarian countries.

Here's a partial list of words and phrases deemed by the Stanford Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative to no longer be used.

You can see whether you agree and/ or check out the rationale with the link, but it seems clear from what they call 'Context,' that this is ideological cancellation, not organic evolution of usage.

Example: even though they report the use of 'calling a spade a spade' dates to the Greeks, because the word contained in the phrase has in times and places been used derogatorily, we should no longer use the phrase.


crazy (sorry, Patsy Cline!)
addicted (back to the drawing board, Robert Palmer.)
he
she
ladies
gentlemen
American
abort
Indian summer
Oriental
thug
barrio
blackbox
brown bag
cakewalk
ghetto
grandfather
call a spade, a spade
white paper
convict
immigrant
prisoner
abusive relationship
beating a dead horse
crack the whip
kill two birds with one stone
killing it
more than one way to skin a cat
pull the trigger
rule of thumb
circle the wagon
hooray
long time
no can do
normal person

That list is total BS!

And you were wrong — but you keep doubling down.

It could be interesting were you to demonstrate the ability to support your opinion, inasmuch as you've offered nothing other than to say I'm wrong.

Perhaps you could try 'I see it differently' or 'the way I look at it?' That might lead to a more agreeable method of explaining where you find fault with my statement.

Simple reiteration of ultimate conclusion without any explanation can leave the reader with the impression of pontification.

And yet it doesn’t stop.

Time to change the channel.

You're welcome to grab the remote anytime.

Since you are self-evidently incapable of a cogent response, I see no reason to seriously consider your pontifications.

The curious reader will see that I've comprehensively laid out my view. What have you offered?