John Cleese criticised for saying London is 'no longer an English city'

[EFLImpudence]

Of course you can. When the parts are combined they form a new word.
According to you a "woodcock" would be a cock made of wood.

Cock is a male bird, I do not know the relevance of wood, but highly likely there is one.

A "cowslip" would be a trip by a bovine female.

Does it resemble a cow's lip?

A "bluebell" would be ......you've guessed it, a blue bell.

They didn't call it a "red pot" for some reason.

Thanks for the entertainment.
I'm sure BAS is his own person, and anything I suggest, he is very capable of forming his own opinion. Otherwise he might have succumbed to be recruited by you or andy. Which, I'm think you will agree, is equally absurd.

Mandy Rice-Davies.

 

[Mfatic]

Cock is a male bird, I do not know the relevance of wood, but highly likely there is one.
Does it resemble a cow's lip?
They didn't call it a "red pot" for some reason.

I assume that is an acceptance of my argument. That parts of words need not mean literally the meaning of those parts. They form a new word.
By the way, not all woodcocks are male.

My apologies for my ham-fisted approach in dealing with your argument.
Of course, my hands are not really made of ham.

Mandy Rice-Davies.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I take it that EFLI is doing his faux-pedantic trolling again?

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, Himmy is.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As Himmy thinks that names are the equivalent of medical terms, let us suppose Himmy's actual name is Alfred; would we have to redefine the meaning of the name or just accept that his parents had made a mistake?

 

[festive]

Thread hijacking into infinite nowhere..

 

[Mfatic]

As Himmy thinks that names are the equivalent of medical terms,

Is islamophobia a medical term now?
How about homophobia?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Is islamophobia a medical term now?

That's exactly the point, isn't it? Phobia is a medical term.
You cannot just call something anything you like.

How about homophobia?

How about it? I've already told you what it means.
That you and others use the word incorrectly is irrelevant. Why not use 'anti-homosexual' or 'misohomosexual'which would be clear.
Misogyny is used for hatred of women so it can't be to difficult for the simpletons.

Homo means 'the same'; I told you that and I have also told you what a phobia is.
So, therefore what does homophobia mean?

 

[Mfatic]

That's exactly the point, isn't it? Phobia is a medical term.
You cannot just call something anything you like.

That is exactly the point.
Phobia is a medical term adopted and used in conjunction with other words to form new words. Those new words take on meanings that need not reflect absolutely the original meanings of the Latin/Roman/French/Gaelic etymology, especially when the new word is not a medical term. It is a part of a word borrowed from medicine to convey approximately the meaning of a new word.

People adopt medical terms and use them, e.g. psycho, short for psychosis, and abscess. But the people that use such words have no clinical expertise.
There are probably numerous uses of specialised words finding their way into everyday conversations.

You cannot just call something anything you like.

Really? there have been a couple of recent examples where people have put their own definition onto the meaning of commonly used words.

Words come into being for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is the formation of a new word which everyone recognises and understands an approximate meaning for it. When it is potentially confusing, and a pseudo-legal definition is required, there are two alternatives, 1. outlaw the use of the word, and create a new word which encapsulates what it is one wants to transmit, or 2. prepare a pseudo-legal definition of the word in existence.
It is far easier to create a pseudo-legal definition of the existing word than it is to create a new word and have it replacing the word already in circulation. Just because EFLImpudence doesn't agree with the meaning, that is not a sensible reason to outlaw the word and create a new one.
Are you a democrat? Do you accept the wishes of the majority? Or do you constantly rail against the majority?

Do you object to the definition of such objects as "what is a tricycle?" Or "what is an electric car?"
Or is it just the words used in describing bigotry and prejudice that you don't like and make so much fuss over?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Can't find any suitable similar accurate misdefinitions, can you?
Just names of things that we are already used to.

Yes, I object to "quad-bike".
It shows the ignorance of the people who thought it up and continue to use it.


I like to call these things giraffes.

There's no reason, according to you, why I should not.

 

[Mfatic]

Can't find any suitable similar accurate misdefinitions, can you?
Just names of things that we are already used to.

Precisely, things we are already used to because the words are in common usage, just like.... err.. islamophobia or homophobia.

But there's also "Psychedelic", There's psychedelic art, music, literature, even sub-culture. But these 'things' don't trigger psychedelic reactions.
There's "arterial", but arterial roads do not carry blood.
I suspect we can all think of examples.

Yes, I object to "quad-bike".
It shows the ignorance of the people who thought it up and continue to use it.

Well why don't you complain to the quad-bike manufacturers.
It's a bummer init, when things happen in society with which we don't agree.

I like to call these things giraffes.
View attachment 165323

You can call them what you like, but no-one will have a clue what you are on about.
However. when someone mentions islamophobia or homophobia, you understand immediately what they are referring to.

There's no reason, according to you, why I should not.

Peculiar conclusion from what I've been saying. I've been saying we should all abide by the accepted definitions, rather than make up our own definitions, which is in total and complete contradiction to your conclusion.
Maybe therein lies the problem.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's a bummer init, when things happen in society with which we don't agree.

Yes, You and Bas do seem to get excited when that happens.

You can call them what you like, but no-one will have a clue what you are on about.

Exactly. Like someone who is unaware of the modern misuse of words which mean something else.

However. when someone mentions islamophobia or homophobia, you understand immediately what they are referring to.

I do, because I am used to the nonsense around today, but I can point out that it is not the correct term and tell you what it actually means.

Peculiar conclusion from what I've been saying. I've been saying we should all abide by the accepted definitions, rather than make up our own definitions, which is in total and complete contradiction to your conclusion.
Maybe therein lies the problem.

So, you agree that if lots of people start calling them giraffes then that is what they will be and no one should attempt to correct the nonsense before it becomes widespread through ignorance.

 

[Mfatic]

Yes, You and Bas do seem to get excited when that happens.

No more excited than you, when someone mentions islamophobia, homophobia or any other of the words describing prejudice.
In fact, I would describe my arguments as calm, reserved and totally defensible.

Exactly. Like someone who is unaware of the modern misuse of words which mean something else.

You appear to be the only one who is suffering such problems.

I do, because I am used to the nonsense around today, but I can point out that it is not the correct term and tell you what it actually means.

You can, and similarly, I can point out that it is the accepted definition of the term, despite your objection about what you think it ought to mean.
I form my own opinion about which is the nonsense.

So, you agree that if lots of people start calling them giraffes then that is what they will be and no one should attempt to correct the nonsense before it becomes widespread through ignorance.

I guess if that ever happens I'll go along with society. I might agree with anyone who wishes to point out the original words and definitions. But on this occasion there was no original use of the word islamophobia or homophobia. It means what it has come to mean.
You can argue that etymologically it should mean something different, but you don't appear to be concerned with the use of psychedelic, or arterial.
Why be so concerned with the etymology of islamophobia or homophobia?

 

[JohnD]

People know what is meant by the word "television" but it could equally well have been used to mean what we now call "binoculars" but could equally have been called a "telescope"

Words mean what they are generally understood to mean in contemporary usage.

 

[Mfatic]

Let's not forget xenophobia - extreme dislike or fear of foreigners their customs their religions, etc.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/xenophobia​