англ. чтиво: попытка словотворчества

[avva]

Ричарду Докинзу, Даниэлю Деннетту и некоторым другим известным и знаменитым своей популяризаторской деятельностью учёным очень не нравится, что слово "атеист" и понятие атеизма во многих местах среди "простого народа" считаются чем-то неправильным, нехорошим, зазорным.

Как они решили это исправить? Они решили придумать и ввести в обиход новое, позитивное слово. Чтобы обеспечить его позитивность, они взяли очень "положительное" прилагательное английского языка: bright (светлый, умный, смышлёный итп.) и решили превратить его в существительное: a bright. По их замыслу, a bright должно обозначать человека, не верящего в различные суеверия, типа там Санта Клауса или Бога. И они призывают всех единомышленников вводить это новое "слово" явочным порядком, просто используя его где только можно.

(в общем, я упростил немного, сама идея была не Докинза с Деннеттом, но они её с огромным энтузиазмом подхватили и раструбили)

Поразмыслив, должен со всей ответственностью заявить, что более идиотской идеи я давно уже не встречал.

А вот и чтиво по этому поводу. Статья Докинза для англичан. Статья Деннетта для американцев. Сайт движения The Brights' Movement. Забавная запись в каком-то веблоге на эту тему.

Статья Докинза, как всегда, в полной мере демонстрирует его интеллектуальную заносчивость вкупе с тягой к нудной бессмыслице. Тем, кто использует фразу consciousness-raising мне вообще хочется что-то страшное сделать, во-первых. А во-вторых, очень смешно, как Докинз выказывает полную свою неосведомлённость, рассуждая о том, как он хочет превратить это новое слово "bright" в столь же положительное, каким стало "gay": " Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults". Ясно, что Докинз ничего не знает о новом весьма отрицательном значении слова "gay" в американском сленге; но как он великолепно этим подставляется, и сам же опровергает собственный тезис! Красота.

Comments

[watertank.livejournal.com]

another cliche: "poetic justice"...

Dawkins says that the introduction of "gay" to denote a homosexual man has been a success. do you agree? do you think that the slang use of "gay" (note, as a noun) by some teenagers makes it retroactively a failure?
"bright" is another attempt to use an old adjective as a new noun. it may or may not be as successful as "gay". that's all.

Re:

[avva.livejournal.com]

Dawkins says that the introduction of "gay" to denote a homosexual man has been a success. do you agree?

I don't agree and, furthermore, Dawkins says no such thing. There was no "introduction of 'gay' to denote a homosexual man" (let alone the fact that it's used not just for men). There was no process of introduction, nobody introduced anything, unlike the silly process Dawkins is proposing. It just happened that an existing slang term for homosexuals grew in popularity and gained acceptance. An existing slang term. "Gay" was not invented out of thin air by homosexual activists (and Dawkins stops shy of saying it did -- whether because he knows it didn't, or because he's even more ignorant and thinks that it did, but didn't think to mention it specifically, I'm not sure). On the other hand, "bright" is not an existing term for atheists, slang or otherwise. The analogy is completely wrongheaded, and Dawkins' insistence on this analogy is yet another example of his intellectual dishonesty. You may swallow his line here if it suits you, of course, but I won't.

do you think that the slang use of "gay" (note, as a noun) by some teenagers makes it retroactively a failure?

Huh? "gay" in the negative sense is used as an adjective, not as a noun. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

And I never said that this use makes "it" retroactively a failure, because there was no "it", there was no "introduction".

Dawkins, however, is talking about the image of the word "gay" in today's language, claiming that it's an uplifting and a positive word. He's twice wrong; first, even discounting the slang use, "gay" is not especially uplifting or positive; it's as neutral a term as "homosexual", but unlike "homosexual" it doesn't have a formal and scientific ring to it.

Secondly, the emergence of "gay" as a specifically negative slang term, which quite clearly grew out of "gay"="homosexual", even if it has little connection to homosexuality now, both completely refutes Dawkins' claim that "gay" is a positive and uplifting word (had it been positive and uplifting, it wouldn't be so easy for a negative slang term to grow out of it), and reveals Dawkins' ignorance in the matters of contemporary language, ignorance which is a key issue here since Dawkins has taken upon himself to educate his readers in the matter of semantic shifts in language, and, moreover, to attempt to create such a shift.

"bright" is another attempt to use an old adjective as a new noun.

Nonsense. The siuation is completely different, as I explained above.

[watertank.livejournal.com]

a) introduction (n) Definition: 1. the act of beginning something new.

At some point somebody used "gay" in a new way (as a noun) to describe a homosexual man. That's called an introduction. Neither Dawkins, nor I said that it was a formal introduction. There was no gala presentation. The word was hijacked.
"Bright" is being introduced semi-formally, which may or may not succeed. Dawkins didn't say it has happened, therefore to accuse him of dishonesty would be ... let's use your favorite word "silly", if not dishonest.

b) gay (n) 1. someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.

You keep mentioning "gay" in the slang context, while Dawkins describes its use in the mainstream context (see the definition above). Please make sure you see the difference.

I personally know people, mostly teenagers, who occasionally use "gay" in a new negative "slang" way. They use all kinds of other words, which never make it to a mainstream conversation. Will see in 20 years which meaning is going to survive.

c) the noun "bright" in the contemporary English language is used only to describe a bright color (check your favorite dictionary).
All other uses are predominantly as an adjective or an adverb.
The proposed use of bright as a noun to describe whatever those people want it to be is a new use.

EOT

Re:

[avva.livejournal.com]

At some point somebody used "gay" in a new way (as a noun) to describe a homosexual man. That's called an introduction.

Then every shift of meaning of every word in any language can be called an "introduction", which devoids the word of any useful meaning in this context. What Dawkins proposes is not at all similar to such "introductions". "gay" was not "hijacked" just because it existed as a slang term for homosexuals, no more than it is now "hijacked" because it exists as a negative slang term. Normal growth and change of the language isn't hijacking. Now, taking a word and trying to force a new meaning on it by fiat, a meaning completely unrelated to the normal use of the word inside the language community - that could be described as "hijhacking". That's now what happened with "gay", though. It's what Dawkins proposes to do with "bright".

Besides this point, you seem to have nothing useful to say in your comment, nor do you address my detailed explanation of why exactly the example of "gay" as a negative slang term refutes Dawkins' silly ideas. Merely saying that it's a slang term doesn't cut it; I've been saying it all along.

[watertank.livejournal.com]

End of thread. Please see my remarks here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/avva/854057.html?thread=10910505#t10910505