So, you can’t let me have my Christmas, huh? Have you ever tried eating a Kwaanza cookie? They’re not very tasty, Antinor01.
Does it help to know that I misspelled ridiculous for most of my adult life?
Niggardly: I’m American, I know the word, I don’t use it, I don’t have a problem with it.
What is the common misunderstanding of these words?
I use it, but I pronounce it “enwardly”. I also pronounce the country south of Algeria and Libya as “Enward” and the people from that country are “Enwards”.
You are still missing my point. Like, by a mile.
Whether we’re talking about “faggot” or “niggardly”, use of these words can take a person out of a conversation. Why? Because through no fault of their own, they are loaded. “Faggot” is loaded because one of its meanings is a slur; “niggardly” is loaded because phonetically it sounds similar to a slur. But they are both loaded. Which means neither is the best choice of words to use in casual communication. Do you understand what I’m saying?
“Bitch” is another example. We are well within our rights to go around talking about bitches when referring to female dogs. “I took my bitch to the park today” is a perfectly valid sentence and a reasonably smart person should know the speaker’s meaning. But would I encourage someone to go around using “bitch” like this when it’s completely unnecessary and there are other words that work just fine? No. Would I defend their use of it by citing dictionaries and calling other people stupid? No, cuz I have better things to do with my time.
This is my point. Why does the use of “niggardly” even need to be defended to the extent that it is? Perhaps the crux is that many people think that the noise which comes out of our mouths (that we affectionately call speech) has inherent value. It really doesn’t.
ywtf makes a good point. I used to do a program with the local humane society in which I showed students how quickly a population of dogs could spiral out of control if none of the dogs were spayed or neutered. To do the program, I had cards with pictures of male dogs, and cards with pictures of female dogs.
I would have been technically correct to go into new classrooms and, in front of the classroom teachers, ask, “Who has a bitch? If you have a bitch, hold up your hand.”
But I never did. And I submit that anyone who says they would is either foolish or dishonest.
Right, LHoD. I’m a veterinarian and am well-versed with “bitch=female dog” but would never causually refer to a client’s dog in that manner just because the word fits. It’s jarring and liable to cause a bad impression. So I’m going to modify my language accordingly. Not a hardship at all for me because “bitch” ain’t on the forefront of my mind anyway. Just like “niggardly” isn’t.
Why doesn’t this kind of self-censorship seem to bother the lexiphiles like self-censoring “niggardly” does? This is where I get lost.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with self-“censorship,” also known as choosing one’s own words. Several people, including Malthus, have said that they’re unlikely to use the word themselves.
The problem is the idea that the word is ruled ineligible for use by anyone.
Some people think ‘peruse’ means to skim lightly. Some people think ‘bemused’ means ‘amused’ while being confused.
One of my favorites is ‘expound’. Some people may correct me and say, “you mean expand upon that idea…” That is fun to me. I would never get into a spar with anyone about it, but it is just that sweet Schadenfreude of some know-it-all trying to correct some poor schmuck and looking like an ass. It’s an ugly little indulgence of mine. I think it comes from a distaste for folks who think they are smarter than everyone else. And maybe some envy at the fact that those snobby intellectuals that are so quick to judge are usually much more educated than I am.
Why defend such things? Because if you don’t, you are allowing the easily-offended to, in essence, limit the language.
Having an expansive vocabulary has value, even if losing one word from it is really a minor matter.
For example: if we allow "niggardly’ to be lost, that’s no skin off my ass - as I said, I don’t use it anyway myself, because its sorta archaic for my use - same reason I don’t generally say “cool, daddy-o”.
However, by the same logic (if one could call it that), why not take offense at someone having “niggling” doubts? Does that not have the exact same “trigger” - that it could, conceivably, offend someone who knows no better? Is it not just as “loaded”, though through no fault of their own?
And then, why stop there … ? Surely, there are dozens of words that ‘sorta sound’ like something offensive! Masticate, cheque kiting, niggling doubts, etc. etc. etc. …
Isn’t it better to draw the line at words that are, you know, actually offensive? I would imagine that most people have “better things to do with their time” than manufacturing offense where none was intended.
I have no problem with “self-censorship” of any sort. Don’t want to refer to a female dog as a “bitch”? Don’t want to use “niggling” or “niggardly”? Don’t like to use “Toronto Maple Leafs” in a sentence? No prob. 
I’m going to go make dinner, the lady parts of chickens, a nice salad. Then I’m going to go out and get some covers for my piano legs, so they don’t offend anyone.
Yes, I’ve used it. Recently in fact. I wouldn’t say I use it daily by any means, but as Bricker points out, sometimes its the best word. And I have friends and a household who understand words and know I’m not racist. We tend to enjoy obscure words (I’m not nearly as good at pulling them out as my husband and daughter).
However, I probably wouldn’t use the word at work - where people don’t tend to have huge vocabularies and where it could be misunderstood or used against me.
I would understand the other side of this discussion if “niggardly” had no synonyms in our vocabularly. I’m betting even the “pro-niggard” crowd use “stingy” or “cheap” much more often. And I doubt this is because of fear of the PC police, but rather for the same reason people use “vehicle” rather than “conveyance” or “self-taught” instead of “autodidact”. People who are not douches try to communicate effectively rather than to cram as many GRE words in a sentence as possible–words that would potentially alienate or offend the listener. The “kite” thing is possibly hypersensitive, but “niggardly”? People really don’t understand how that would make even a reasonable person’s ears burn?
If they do understand that this is a common reaction and they use the word anyway, well, that makes that person a jerk. It shows a lack of consideration, even if their use of the word is technically correct.
The English language has lots of words, and in many cases, if there’s more than one word that seems to describe the same thing, there are fine distinctions. Which, of course, are lost on people who don’t know the definition in the first place, and if a word is rarely used, that will happen.
For instance we used to be able to distinguish between a thing someone stood on to make a speech, and a thing someone stood behind to make a speech. Now, thanks to ignorance and misuse, we don’t have that fine distinction.
“Niggardly” doesn’t just mean cheap, and it doesn’t just mean stingy, and it doesn’t just mean pennypinching. There are situations where it would be the best word to use, so as not to use a whole bunch of other words. And I have used it that way.
But, if people aren’t going to get it, there’s no point in using it, it’s pearls before swine, people! You lose a word, you gain a word–but the word you gain will probably be something real elegant like “blog.” And I’m being charitable here.
Turn it around - the “common reaction” assumes that I’m a racist out to offend instead of saying "I must have heard that wrong - and not someone who is interested in “just the right word” for the situation - which sometimes niggardly is. I’m not exactly sure who is supposed to be the jerk.
I suspect that my response (not one of the options) is actually the most common response.
I know the word, I would not personally use it, but I don’t think it “shouldn’t be used.”
edit: I would use it in written form where it wouldn’t be mistaken, but I would not use it in conversation.
I must admit to occasionally doing the same sort of thing. Much of my education has been autodidactic, so it does amuse me to explain a word to the three English majors that I work with. I do keep it to a minimum though.
But that reaction cannot be helped. If I don’t know you and I hear you use niggardly, especially in a way that I perceive as forced, I, as a black person, will have a reflexive thought: I’m in the midst of a racist. A reflex, by definition, cannot be helped. After hearing more of your conversation (and if I hear you using other, equally obscure words), or after getting to know you as a person, that reflex will diminish. But feelings cannot be helped. They just are.
The words you use can be chosen deliberately, though. Perhaps you’re a person who uses the word “niggardly” reflexively, but I’m thinking there aren’t too many of you out there. For the most part, under normal circumstance, you have the choice to be perceived as a racist or not by your word choices. The listener who’s sensitive to your word choices cannot help their feelings. And let’s face it. There are plenty of racists would do use “niggardly” just because they can take advantage the purity of the word (and apparently that’s funny). I know they exist because I’ve spent at least five minutes on the internet.
Just to clarify: I don’t advocate anyone getting in your face and calling you a racist, or making a big to-do about your use of the word. My point is the same as you with the face’s. If you want to use “niggardly”, go ahead. But then don’t act shocked by the reactions you get. Any idiot can see why the word would raise eyebrows, so only an idiot would go around saying it without expecting negative reactions. Some people like being provocative. I think those people are jerks. And it sounds like you aren’t one of them, so good.
This made me snigger.
monstro, how about if I, a fellow black person, say niggardly?