I’ve used the sentence “Don’t pussyfoot or be niggarly with the rope when you make that cunt splice”. I used it right now.
Not necessarily. I agree that if referring to the typical tipping habits of a person, it’s somewhat perjorative.
But if I say, “Remember, camp counselors, you have only six Band-Aids per cabin, so you’re going to have to be niggardly in their application,” that’s not remotely insulting.
I totally agree with this, and it actually kind of shocks me how much Dopers seem to think that words have any absolute characteristics, apart from usage, especially with regard to pronunciation and meaning. If enough people and/or your audience pronounce a word a certain way or assign a word a certain meaning, that is the “correct” pronunciation/meaning of the word.
Along those lines, if people think niggardly has racist connotations, it does. Period.
People thought that the Sun went around the Earth for thousands of years. Oddly, it doesn’t.
Not read the thread but just wanted to make the point that if we don’t want to use niggardly because it’s too close to a word that is also an epithet against a minority, shall we also stop using the words tag, sag, lag, bag, wag, nag, rag and hag for being ONLY ONE LETTER away from an epithet that denigrates another minority?
Let’s have some sense here people.
The problem with that is that I don’t see the racist connotations, I have never heard it used to denigrate race, but I have heard it used correctly.
So what makes your say so worth so much more than my experience?
In the last three days I’ve run across the word two times in a book or article not talking about the subject niggardly
See, this exactly the kind of usage that strikes me as awkward and therefore indicative of someone who is reaching to use a word when a similar, more conventional word fits better. It’s obvious to me that you should be using a word like “frugal” instead. “Niggardly” very much has a negative connotation, much like “miserly” does. But “frugal” puts across a more positive shade of meaning that fits your intent better.
“Niggardly” is one of those words that is so dated that it really only works in written literary passages, where an author can go to dramatic length describing persons, places, and things in ways that people hardly ever do when speaking informally nowadays. This is a good example by Jules Verne:
- The evening was lovely, and our three friends enjoyed it in the cool shade of the mimosas, after a substantial repast, at which the tea and the punch were dealt out with no niggardly hand.*
Not American, know the word, don’t tend to use it – it’s a fairly low use item – but wouldn’t be worried about racial confusion if I did. (The whole “N-word” situation seems a generally American affair). Do use niggling, and often use discombobulation. 
Cigarettes were quite commonly “fags” when I was a lad… these days I expect I’d only use the word if I was also referring to having a Lucifer to light one with.
Not at all. I chose “Band-Aids” as the item for precisely that reason – what kind of organization stints on supplying Band-Aids to active summer campers? That’s not frugal – that’s mean, cheaply mean, parsimoniously mean with a blindness of “pennywise, pound foolish”… precisely the sort of stinginess that “niggardly” evokes, which makes it the perfect word in that situation. You wanted my intent to be positive, so you urged “frugal” on me, but your choice would actually have eviscerated my intent.
And if people think “marriage” refers only to the union between a man and a woman, then it does. Period.
Or maybe some other punctuation is called for on that one, eh?
It was in 1999, so a decade ago. But it is not an isolated incident - the Wiki site describes others, including a lawsuit in 2009:
It seems contradictory to both vehemently argue that you are correct in this matter, and that the controversy is pointless. Obviously, you care enough about it to argue - as do I.
My reason again is not because I use the word, or even care about it - I don’t, specifically - but rather, because of the principle of the thing: I dislike the notion of catering to an offence based on ignorance, because it sets a bad precident. Why excatly do you care about the matter?
I admit, “niggardly” is not part of my common usage, but I do have a fondness for “niggling” as in “small niggling details”.
Proof of my point - you can tell from context when a slur is intended through a mis-use of a word. Which says nothing of how offensive a word is per se.
Note the sign also says “Buck Ofama”. This is obviously an offensive pun - you are supposed to read “fuck Obama”, perhaps with a side-order of “buck” meaning a Black dude. Should we all avoid the use of the word “buck”, because some ignorant racist can use the word offensively?
Quite. It’s an appropriate word with a precise nuance of meaning. Which means it doesn’t get used much.
I’ll give up my occasional use if the rest of Planet Moron stops using ‘loose’ and ‘lose’ interchageably.
I think it’s proof of my point, which is that this word was deliberately chosen by an asshole to be an asshole and to make the audience hear another word. Which is exactly what I have been saying. A good chunk of your audience is going to hear “nigger” if you say “niggard” or “niggardly.” It’s so obvious even a complete imbecile making signs gets it and knows what his audience will hear.
But I thought your original point was that the term isn’t necessarily insulting or negative. Now it looks like you saying that conserving band-aids is a bad thing. But this supports, not counters, Big T’s point.
And I’m left wondering why would anyone be advising their employees to engage in a distastefully stingy behavior. In the sentence you wrote, it’s not immediately obvious to the listener/reader that the speaker believes withholding band-aids is a value-negative thing that he’s expecting his underlings to do. You’re expecting them to be able to infer that from an assumption that you have about the value of band-aids; not from anything that you are explicitly saying. In other words, you would not be communicatively effectively if you said something like this, and people would have good reason to be seriously non-impressed with your word choice.
I’m not vehemently arguing anything. It just strikes me as recreational outrage at this point. It’s akin to still being passionate over the “freedom fries” controversy and the indignities of being socially pressured to say “happy holidays” rather than “merry Christmas”.
As an aside (because it doesn’t change my larger point), if you are claiming something as recent as 2009 has happened, could you describe what it was? Because I glanced through your link and saw nothing about it.
I’m annoyed whenever I see a dead horse being beaten. The “niggardly” juice is just not worth the squeeze that is routinely applied in defending its use.
I used the word “niggly” once (as in “I have to handle all of these little niggly details”) = little and nagging – and one of the people in the conversation looked at me like I had said something absolutely horrible. (And he is an educated person.) So I would not do so again. Although “niggardly” etc. are valid words, it is not worth alienating people over it.
The controversy in DC cited in the staff article marked the first time I’d ever heard of anyone mistaking this word for a derogatory term. I’ve used it occasionally, sparingly, over the years; but I admit I have a large and occasionally esoteric vocabulary.
I still use it every once in a great while when the situation calls for it, unless certain circumstances mitigate against said use.
I would, however, dispute the claim that it shouldn’t be used because “it is not used in everyday conversation.” People can and do get through their days with surprisingly few words…perhaps a “thanks,” an occasional “yo!” and some nods and grunts. I’m not going to restrict myself to that level of discourse just because it’s “everyday use.”