I suppose because, IMO, it is better to bend to the general opinion than to stand on pedantry. Yes, the people who object to the word are in the wrong, but their numbers are legion, whereas the people who know and use the word with fluency are few. Unless you are planning to run remedial English classes for the Great Unwashed, the prudent course is to give in on this point. It just isn’t an important enough battle to fight.
Oh my. I actually agree wholeheartedly with gobear and this pleases me.
I don’t think the teacher should have been reprimanded.
But I don’t think she should have used that word around nine-year-olds. It sounds like a bad word. Just like if there was a perfectly innocent word that sounded like “fuck” or “shit” I wouldn’t use it in front of that audience.
With adults or young adults, I would have no problem. But these are little kids. You can’t say things like “weiner” and “pirate’s booty” without them cracking up. Would you really want them cracking up over “niggardly”?
It’s important to the Teacher who got disciplined for it. The way I see it, you’re not going to eradicate the word any time soon. I simply don’t think it is as uncommon as you seem to think it is. The incident in question seems to back up my point of view. Assuming that this teacher had no racist intentions, it was a common enough word to end up on her syllabus, or alternatively it was just common enough for her to feel that her studends should know it. For all we know, teachers up and down the United States are teaching this supposedly outmoded and archaic word to their pupils. As long as the word remains in any kind of circulation then innocent people are going to be disciplined and possibly fired because of the ignorance of those around them. This is unacceptable.
Jane Eyre was part of the required reading for my british lit class, senior year of HS. Public school, Clovis HS, Clovis, CA. It is the “middle level” english class for seniors.
Wait a sec… I agree that teachers should not be fired for using the word; in this case, a good dictionary should be used to show the word does not mean what the ignorant think it means. I just think that people of good will should just agree to not use the word. It it provides a stumbling block for others, then I can’t find a decent justification for using “niggardly.” Now if it were an irreplaceable word with a unique definition that could not be foun in another word, my verdict would change. But since we have so many other words that convey the same concept, the word should be abandoned.
What are we going to do if someone uses a word accurately as to its meaning and without any adverse intent and someone in the audience(or her mother) misunderstands or mishears the word?
This apparently is what we have here. I don’t know the answer except to say the situation needs to be dealt with in a straightforward manner by responsible adults, without the hoopla or finger pointing.
while walking my dogs. It is everywhere blaring out of car stereos. I cannot even walk around my neighborhood without hearing the actual slur repeatedly. OK, now explain again how a similar, but completely different, word is offensive in any meaningful sense.
Any use of the word with children should be accompanied by a quick lesson on the definition, like any confusing word.
A reprimand? Ohmigod, I’ve died and gone to hell. Is there a cause of action for criminal stupidity, aggravated hypocrisy, or verbal negligence? No, damn, there is not. If there were, we could charge the parent with the first two and the teacher with the last.
Just yesterday at the dinner table, my eldest daughter who is a freshman in high school remarked that the teachers are freer with their language than they were in middle school. As examples, she mentioned a couple of craps and hells. We said that we thought teachers should be able to avoid such words in school, but it was no big deal.
Then my 7th grade son asked, “is crap a swear?” (For as long as I can remember, my kids have expressed a belief in a special class of words called “swears.” I remember when they debated among each other whether or not “shut up” was “a swear.”)
Well, we explained to the 3 kids that there is no precise class of words denoted “swears.” And we proceeded to discuss time place and manner restrictions - both legal and personal. (My sisters are all Catholic, so we tell our kids to try to avoid saying “Jesus”, “Ohmygod”, etc. in front of them. Currently #1 on the hit list in casa Dinsdale is our attempt to discourage the excessive and casual use of the word “sucks.”) We discussed the whether “Geez” was okay if “Jesus” was objectionable. They got a kick out of George Carlin’s list of dirty words, and were more bored when the discussion turned to FCC regulations. That’s the price you pay as a kid for bringing up an innocuous topic when both your parents are lawyers!
Oh yeah, my kids also get a buck any time they can use a word that I do not know the definition of.
You can never have too large of a vocabulary. I looked up niggard and niggardly in the dictionary, and there is no mention of them as archaic when used as nouns or adjectives. Moreover, the immediate following word is nigger. So anyone caring to crack a dictionary, can easily see the distinct origins of the two words.
“Swears”, as well as racial and religious insults, are part of our cultural history. As a general principle, I feel it is best to have as much information as possible. As the result of conversations such as we had over dinner last night, I believe my kids will be better equipped to make informed choices in their lives. Which I think should be a primary goal of education.
Gobear, you suggest people of good will should just agree not to use the word. I disagree. Niggard and niggardly is a perfectly fine word, and should be used with impunity. Someone should not be penalized for being educated; they should not be constrained in their language or actions simply because someone else might take offense through ignorance or prejudice.
What Beagle said. Right to the heart, as usual.
Now, not being from N. Carolina, but from the U.K., I ought, perhaps, to find another example of the same sort of thing. If I were to go to some parts of the North of Ireland, for instance, and to remark, that I, or anyone, else, had fairly “catholic” taste in reading material, then I imagine there would be some uneducated person(s) who would get a bit upset. (And quite LOUDLY so! Sorry for the shouting , folks, but the (so-called) Reverend Ian Paisley (and his type) just jumped into my mind.* 
However, the ignorance, and unwillingness to check the facts before rushing to start a shouting match, would not make these protestors right: it would, one would hope, merely make them look silly.
I am with Dinsdale on this: it is an opportunity for education in quite a few ways.
I did look at the article to which the OP linked, but I am not clear about whether the lady in question knew the word, or checked it in a dictionary before complaining.
I do not quite see why the use of language is to be dictated by those who do not know how to use it.
- advice on how to clean out mind with pesticide would be quite welcome!
Wouldn’t work, Gomez. Larger looks too much like lager, and diagram sounds too much like diaphragm. You can’t win. Better to just adopt Newspeak and forget about giving kids the tools of thought.
I guess you’ll never write the word fuchsia in front of the ignorant parent either, hey?
Here’s the thing: if I ever heard Rush Limbaugh use the word “niggardly,” I’d feel damn certain that he was using it to tweak African Americans, using a trick that every kid knows:
If you’re obviously trying to piss someone off, you’ll probably succeed.
That’s why a little kid can call another kid a Giant Orange and reduce the other kid to tears.
Words are powerful to a large degree because of the perceived intent of the speaker. If I use the word “niggardly” because I am, in part, daring my ignorant listeners to object, then I’m trying to piss them off every bit as much as I would be if I used the word “nigger.”
If I use the word “niggardly” because I believe it’s the best word for the occasion, however, and I truly am not trying to piss off any part of my audience, then I’m blameless.
Given the rarity of the word in modern parlance, I’m automatically suspicious of the motivations of anyone who uses it. Etymology aside, I’d bet that most folks who use the word in conversation today use it fully aware of, and secretly gleeful about, the way that it’ll be misunderstood.
Strangely, I’d consider someone who used the word today to be at best ignorant: the false etymology of the word is at least as much a part of the word’s connotation as is the true etymology of the word. To use the word almost requires a short aside explaining that you know what it sounds like, that it’s not even remotely related to the word “nigger,” and that you’re using the word “niggardly” because of its precise meaning.
Daniel
Now, not being from N. Carolina, but from the U.K., I ought, perhaps, to find another example of the same sort of thing. If I were to go to some parts of the North of Ireland, for instance, and to remark, that I, or anyone, else, had fairly “catholic” taste in reading material, then I imagine there would be some uneducated person(s) who would get a bit upset. (And quite LOUDLY so! Sorry for the shouting , folks, but the (so-called) Reverend Ian Paisley (and his type) just jumped into my mind.*
However, the ignorance, and unwillingness to check the facts before rushing to start a shouting match, would not make these protestors right: it would, one would hope, merely make them look silly.
I am with Dinsdale on this: it is an opportunity for education in quite a few ways.
I did look at the article to which the OP linked, but I am not clear about whether the lady in question knew the word, or checked it in a dictionary before complaining.
I do not quite see why the use of language is to be dictated by those who do not know how to use it.
- advice on how to clean out mind with pesticide would be quite welcome!
Daniel - I am aware that I use it, tho not all that often. Heck, I don’t have occasion to use the words “miserly” or “stingy” all that frequently either.
But if I am in a situation where I am speaking casually and extemporaneously, and the term niggardly is very appropriate for the meaning I am trying to convey, I don’t automatically run an autocorrect diagnostic before uttering it to see if there are alternative synonyms that might not offend ignorant listeners.
Alternatively, tho I cannot recall a specific instance of doing so, if I were preparing written or oral remarks, I can easily imagine using niggardly instead of the alternatives if I liked the way it sounded and flowed in context. And I would grant my intended audience the courtesy of not presuming them to be ignorant and judgmental.
Having said that, I am very self interested. As tremendous a proponent of free speech as I am, I would eschew the use of just about any word - especially in a professional context - if I were aware of the possibility that some dumbfuck might cause me personal hardship due to their ignorant misinterpretation of my words.
Wow I didn’t know there was such a big hubbub about this word. I’ve read the word a few times in books, and sometimes I tend to use words I’ve read before having heard them spoken. I used to pronounce cliche “KLEESH”, and Camille “CAMELEE”, and recipe “RUHSEEP”.
I may well possibly use the word niggardly just from my having absorbed it a few times, and I chafe at the thought that I can’t use it because others misconstrue its meaning. I bristle at the thought that a teacher, simply wanting to expand the vocabulary of her students, gets reprimanded for teaching it.
Thanks for bringing this topic up. I shall use the word “niggardly” every chance I get, on paper or in speech. Yes I know I am also using it with a political agenda, but I don’t care. Fighting the PC police and general ignorance is a worthy enough cause for this agenda, in any case.
- Wind
Celyn, would you be saying, “His reading tastes are so (hee hee!) catholic”? If so, then you deserve whatever wrath gets thrown at you: you’re trying to use words to start something just as surely as you would be if you used an epithet.
Would you be saying, “His reading tastes are so catholic [and anyone who’s got a problem with this is just an ignoramus who I can ignore]”? If so, then you’re deliberately communicating poorly by ignoring the connotation of the words you use.
Would you be saying, “His reading tastes are so catholic [with no awareness of how people might misconstrue what you’re saying]”? If so, hopefully someone will educate you as to the connotations of the word you use. It’s always good to have yer ignorance fought.
If you want to use words to communicate, you gotta know what the words will mean to your audience. Declaring that some connotations of a word are more “valid” than other connotations don’t make it so. You might want to try to stamp out certain connotations – e.g., you may want to tell your listeners why you use a word a certain way – but to ignore those connotations is to communicate less effectively.
Daniel
My head nearly exploded while reading this thread. IMHO this whole issue is about ignorance and hyper-sensitivity in our society. The fact that the teacher was reprimanded made me livid.
I was first exposed to “niggard(ly)” in the 9th grade, the first time I read Hamlet. Are some people trying to tell me we should rewrite Shakespeare?!?! At this rate I would assume we will.
I will NOT acquiesce to the throngs of ignorant masses. I will continue to use this word. If others are offended I hope they will confront me so I can enlighten them to it’s meaning. This is my duty as a part of society, to help enrich the lives of those around me.
sigh- long breath of relief.
Those of you who know japanese will be amused to find my name in this thread. 
Windwalker’s usage –
– is exactly the sort that I think deserves criticism: it’s used with an intent to offend. Since the word “nigger” is offensive because of the speaker’s intent, not because of some sort of inherent sonic property of the word, Windwalker will be just as offensive by using “niggardly” as he would be using “nigger”. He(?) intends to offend, and so he’ll succeed.
Dinsdale, on the other hand, represents someone (I think) who would use the word responsibly: he’d be aware of its connotations and take them into consideration, but still might use the word if it expressed what he(?) needed to express.
I still think that it may not be worth using: unfortunately, it looks as if the language is evolving so that “niggardly” has offensive connotations attached to it. These connotations are again not due to an inherent sonic property of the word: they, like all connotations, are due to the society in which the word exists.
But in some groups, for now, and sometimes with explanation, the word can be used for its old, pre-connotation meaning.
Daniel
Just in case you were wondering “were is that in Hamlet?!?!”
…you’ve got some nerve.
act 3 sc 1