As promised, a new time-waster for your Friday. The weekly quiz is no more -- although we might return to it on something like a monthly basis. In its place, competition gives way to collaboration, as we present The Friday Question.
The goal here is not merely to answer and dispose of the Question (though, given my track record, early disposal is indeed the likely fate for many of my contributions), but to take it as an invitation to add your own related conundra, paradoxes, complaints, rants, observations, investigations, speculations, and reverberations.
Here, then, without further delay, is this week's conceptual grenadoe:
A great many words in English change everyday meaning over time. One interesting subset of changed words are those adjectives which have moved from having a meaning not wholly positive to having an almost solely positive one. That is, they are now synonyms of "good" or "excellent" when at one time they had specific and more emotionally complicated meanings. Examples of this phenomenon are terrific, fantastic, sublime and wonderful. A more subtle version is in the change wrought upon the adjective "nice" as applied to a person. At once time this meant particular, choosy, or even someone who stands too much on ceremony. Now, of course, it means "pleasant" or "well-intentioned."
A word currently in the midst of this transformation is enormity, which is rapidly losing its negative aspect and simply has become a synonym of "great size."
The Question: Are words more frequently changing to have emotionally positive meanings than vice versa? That is, are there a counterbalancing set of words which previously denoted positive experiences or values, which have changed in meaning now to becomes synonyms with "bad"? Are there examples of this we can point to?
Your contributions on this matter in the comments, please. And Google all ye like.
Last night a friend of ours proposed that we re-jigger the word "metal" to approximate ye olden worde "rad," as in "that's totally metal news, dude!"
If this happened, would that be a neg --> pos, a pos --> pos, or a neut --> pos?
Also: does sarcasm count? As in a young 'un calling something a bit too birkenstocky for his or her state "groovy"?
Posted by: hackly_fracture on January 21, 2005 10:39 AM(you know, with withering sarcasm in her tone)
Posted by: hackly_fracture on January 21, 2005 10:47 AMWe seem to be unsure if inspiring awe is a good thing or a bad thing. "Terrific" has, as you say, moved toward the good, while "awful," "terrible," and "dreadful" have moved toward the exclusively bad, and one shade of meaning of "fear" is almost entirely ignored, except in contexts of fearing god.
Outside that, the only good-to-bad word I can think of is "silly" (originally meaning innocent or blessed).
I am going to amuse myself by blaming it all on capitalism. You need to get attention for your product, and so you want a new, exciting word. You don't care so much about what words actually mean--you just need something that sounds big, powerful, new. So when you grab your new word, you're going to use it to mean "good." You may not even know what it really means: you're in sales, remember.
I think it's bound to happen to "fulsome" eventually.
Posted by: terry on January 21, 2005 12:55 PMThese discussions are gonna make me look stupid.
The only thing I can think of is a cousin of the phenomenon you're talking about - sinister. But that's a move across languages and across a greater timespan than you mean.
Terry's points about terrific/terrible and awesome/awful are interesting.
Officious?
Posted by: boxjam on January 21, 2005 03:55 PMDoes 'suck' count as having gone from positive to negative?
Posted by: Scott on January 21, 2005 04:43 PM"Awesome" is another word I originally thought of in this regard, and then forgot about -- originally meaning awe-inspiring (with all of the attendant ambiguity), now typically meaning "great."
And "awe-full"/"awful" is a great counterexample, Terry.
Did "officious" once mean good things? I'll have to hit the OED at home.
Posted by: BT on January 21, 2005 04:44 PMYou do that. I personally will be hitting the 'sauce.'
Posted by: Scott on January 21, 2005 04:49 PMAccording to the RHCD (Random House College Dictionary), the obsolete meaning of officious is "ready and willing to serve." Not unlike the sauce, actually.
I have dim memories that there is a chapter in "The Power of Babel" by John McWhorter that addresses just why more words shift towards more positive meanings, but specifics escape me. I can't really recommend the book either, as it wasn't satisfyingly information dense, rather more like a series of lectures typed up. Not without high points, but in the end more of a slog than it should have been.
Posted by: Scott on January 21, 2005 04:53 PMOh yeah - "French."
Posted by: BoxJam on January 21, 2005 05:12 PMHmm. Fleabitten, pockmarked, scatterbrained, unctious, rank, and maladroit have always been bad.
Howsabout "Republican"?
I was reading about the Italian word for left "sinestro" as having the same devious background as our left-handed (compliment, etc.) and having the same base as the English word "sinister."
Reminds me of the section in X (Malcom, is in Spike Lee) when they look up "white" and "black" in the dictionary to note the nefarious nature of things dark versus the cleanliness and wholesomeness of the light.
Must suck to be a left-handed black etymologist.
Posted by: teenidol on January 24, 2005 02:38 PMI was reading about the Italian word for left "sinestro" as having the same devious background as our left-handed (compliment, etc.) and having the same base as the English word "sinister."
Reminds me of the section in X (Malcom, is in Spike Lee) when they look up "white" and "black" in the dictionary to note the nefarious nature of things dark versus the cleanliness and wholesomeness of the light.
Must suck to be a left-handed black etymologist.
Posted by: teenidol on January 24, 2005 02:52 PMI was reading about the Italian word for left "sinestro" as having the same devious background as our left-handed (compliment, etc.) and having the same base as the English word "sinister."
Reminds me of the section in X (Malcom, is in Spike Lee) when they look up "white" and "black" in the dictionary to note the nefarious nature of things dark versus the cleanliness and wholesomeness of the light.
Must suck to be a left-handed black etymologist.
Posted by: teenidol on January 24, 2005 04:03 PMteenidol was reading about the Italian word for left "sinestro" as having the same devious background as our left-handed (compliment, etc.) and having the same base as the English word "sinister."
Reminds him of the section in X (Malcom, is in Spike Lee) when they look up "white" and "black" in the dictionary to note the nefarious nature of things dark versus the cleanliness and wholesomeness of the light.
He feels it must suck to be a left-handed black etymologist.
Posted by: BoxJam on January 25, 2005 03:06 PMSorry about that. I just saw that Dominoe's commercial with the people saying everything 3 times.
And when I said "it must suck" -- is that a positive suck or a negative suck?
On a different note, I see B&N sells this great title: A Million Random Digits With 100,000 Normal Deviates http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=iM4q4LpAdM&isbn=0833030477 but I gots to give Amazon some cred for having the peek inside feature:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0833030477/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-4152158-8759338#reader-link
I just couldn't believe they followed 24210 with 36699. A great read!
Posted by: teenidol on January 25, 2005 03:20 PMnow, if I was checking the web on friday the 21st of January instead of conferencing in New Orleans, I would have raised the issue of the way words used to describe stigmatized groups often become stigmatized too (turning to bad). Thus, many former terms for African-Americans fall into this category. On the plus side, such groups have recently sought to reclaim some stigmatized words ("queer" is the example that comes easiest to mind) and try to turn them back to positive in an empowering way.
Posted by: art on February 3, 2005 07:00 PM