You’re right, of course. It’s still a common term for a drink ingredient amount.
I think the word nigger shouldn’t be used by white people in most circumstances. That previous sentence wasn’t one of them, because of the use/mention distinction. See? One circumstance.
I haven’t seen the Jackie Robinson movie or Django Unchained, but my understanding is that the word was used in both of those. Were they only said by black people? If not, there’s two circumstances – use/mention, movies and books.
There’s no reason for a teacher to read the word aloud – why does Huck Finn have to be read aloud? How many books are teachers reading to students? Do you think this is a recent taboo? Because I would have thought that would have been the case since at least the 80s. You know, two generations ago. I don’t remember teachers reading to us, except maybe some Shakespeare passages(?).
This is interesting, and I missed that story. If it’s not appropriate to discuss it here, could you make another thread for it?
Uh, it was a word in my use-vocabulary as a young adult. I’m also over 50, so agreeing with Tamerlane. While it wasn’t a super-common word, it wasn’t weird, either. I believe the word was forced into early “archaicism” by its resemblance to a vulgarity.
The vulgarity was never part of my use-vocabulary, and I’ve never missed it. I do sometimes miss niggardly.
The fact is there is no shortage of synonyms for niggardly (miserly, stingy, cheap, frugal), so it likely fell into disuse simply because there is nothing special about it. To me, it’s one of those words that sounds awkward unless you’re using it in written literary prose and have a precise connotation in mind.
I would have said it was more common that miserly when I was younger. It didn’t sound awkward until people started comparing it to the vulgarity. But i agree that it’s not a huge loss to the language.
“Niggardly” also strikes me as somewhat orphan-like compared to those others, each of which has at least one common word with the same root, i.e. noun and adverb forms like: miser, stinginess, cheaply, frugality. Were there words like niggard or niggardishness that could have offered mutual support to niggardly?
And as an afterthought, the OP’s complaint blends in with a lot of similar complaints about PC-ness run amok, i.e. overblown at best.
No cite is required because it was just an “IME” I was saying. If you’re saying that that’s not the case in your experience…fine. What more can be said?
All I have found is that in the rare event it comes up in conversation, someone will respond with “Clean his what!?” with a somewhat shocked expression as though the speaker had said something rude.
In fairness, in my recollection, it’s usually an american saying the phrase and non-american being shocked by it. But still; that’s gonna be a downward pressure on the use of that expression.
‘Niggardly’ is obviously derived from ‘niggard’. There are also other words offering ‘mutual support’ like ‘niggle’. None of these are archaic words, with the exception of ‘nig’.
I think I have a possible compromise solution - non-AAVE-speakers should endeavour to only have the word nigger pass their lips when it is immediately following the 2 words “the word”. So it should only be used in the phrase “the word ‘nigger’”, never standalone. That would make the use/mention distinction clearer.
I figured there was a niggard, but it sounds like it faded from common usage a while ago.
Is “niggle” used commonly any more? I’m not really moved to reconsider my assessment of “niggardly” as an orphan if you cite relatives that are long dead.
“Niggle”, “niggard”, and “niggardly” are all words I was taught as school vocabulary, and have heard and seen used (though note I like to read a lot), and I am not long dead. “Nig” is the variation I think may be archaic. But what does that anecdotal evidence matter- I might be an eccentric lexicographer or merely taking the piss.
Your question and similar in this thread have made me think, as far as hard data, perhaps someone with better Google-Fu can download a corpus of English text covering, say, the past 10 years, count the frequency of occurrence of “niggard” & its inflections- , same with ‘niggle’- say it turn out to be the 12345th-most frequently used word- and check what are the other words around that place on the list. That should mostly settle the question of whether those words are in fact archaic yet.
NB if you say ‘thou niggard’ out loud-in print there is no chance for error- then I suppose it might be misheard leading to an embarrassing misunderstanding, but that in no way affects the use of the word(s) the op is worried about
Unless you’re discussing The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Or the works of Joseph Conrad. Or you’re a great poet like E. E. Cummings.
Bigots will find a way to be offensive and hurtful even if you give them a list of naughty words to avoid. That’s why the mods can’t say, “Don’t use the following words, and you won’t be banned for sexism.” George Carlin was right: The problem isn’t a word, it’s the racist asshole who uses it.
Magic isn’t real, saying or writing this or that particular word doesn’t manifest evil things into the world.
If magic was real and someone could snap their fingers and utterly remove the word nigger from existence the sort of people who used it as a slur would simply use other words. Prejudice and bigotry exist beyond what words are used to express it.
Frankly the way some people speak about this reminds me of the bit about the knights who say ni! in Monty Python’s The Holy Grail.
It’s farcical and stops being funny when the principle is used, in effect, to dis-empower people by instilling in their minds that a word has power over their sense of self worth instead of the realization that the use of slurs against people speaks entirely about the moral character of the person using the slurs.
With all that in mind the existence of slur words concerns me much less than the existence of people who want to control what can or can’t be said by fiat and more often than not capriciously.
Oops – “Niggard” would have been a lot more common (especially in the 1800s) if I hadn’t capitalized it. Anyway, once you get to the page, it’s easy to play around.
If I understand you correctly, your argument is that people who point out the hurtful impact of the use of certain language on society and individuals are a bigger problem than those who decide to use the problematic language? Perhaps you could expand on what problem you see here? As posited, you are positioning those who harm our society above those who seek to improve it.