But this is not what “objective” means. Why would you think it excludes complexity or subtlety of meaning, or variation of meaning according to context?
“Objective” is the opposite of “subjective”. Words have objective meaning established by consensus usage in the community of speakers - including, in many cases, great complexity and subtlety. My point is that you cannot just assign your own personal subjective meaning to words, ignoring consensus usage, and expect to communicate effectively. You cannot just unilaterally decide to use the word “cat” for the animal that barks and expect to be understood. Similarly, you cannot just ignore the complex historical semantic baggage attached to words like “queer” and “colored” on the basis that you did not intend to attach such meaning when you used the word.
From other posts, I think we’re in complete agreement on this - I’m puzzled why you would put this interpretation on the word “objective”.
It seemed to be the way that octopus was using the term, which is what I was trying to respond to. As you note, I don’t disagree with your position on semantic significance in general.
In a specific context, they have enough objective meaning that I can design experiments around them. Sit me down in front of a class of 20 kindergarteners anywhere in the US, and when I say, “Make a sound like a cat,” I’ll get a chorus of"Meows!"
The word “cat” wasn’t dug up from the Noun Mines of Austria some six thousand years ago. Its meaning is solely determined by culture. But in a culture, it has an objective meaning that leads to predictable and reproducible results.
In general, it doesn’t matter if a word has taken on a more offensive meaning only after the original speech was made. “Think it queer” had nothing at all at the time to do with homosexuality. It’s just (today) an archaic way to say “find it weird” or “find it strange.”
That’s not to say people wouldn’t object to someone saying that in the modern day. But no one gets offended by quoting “queer” in old books any more than they do the word “gay” meaning happy. At least, not unless the person seems to be trying to be sneaky.
Words may not have objective meaning, but they do have a kind of consensus subjective meaning. It’s honestly a lot like fiat currency. A word holds a particular meaning only if a population collectively agrees that it holds a certain meaning. And a ‘population’ can be just about anything. A social group, a geographic area, a country, or a forum on the internet.
Language is ‘designed’ (for lack of a better word) to be incredibly malleable and adaptable. When we developed writing, we began a process of artificially stagnating its natural tendency to change over time. When we (much later) developed codified dictionaries, we all but froze it. There were certain small benefits (all of human civilization), but we can still recognize that there’s a constant shearing effect between the written and spoken word.
Which is why, in threads like these, you get people pointing at dictionaries as if that proves anything about contemporary usage. Dictionaries are snapshots frozen in time, but usage doesn’t give a shit about dictionaries. And usage doesn’t give a shit about how a particular word was used a generation ago, or two generations ago, or ten generations ago.
A considered person is capable of understanding that a word which used to mean a bundle of burning sticks is now absolutely unacceptable language in America. A considered person is capable of understanding that a word which used to mean ‘kind of strange’ later became a slur and is currently in a state where context and care are hugely important in its use.
You can rail against change all you want. You can create an entire governmental organization dedicated to yelling at the incoming tide. It’s still gonna happen. Nobody can stop it.
So what can you do?
You can be kind. You can be considerate. You can recognize your mistakes, own them, correct your behavior, and be better going forward. If language can change, so can people.
Colours had tropical meanings even in classical times. E.g., the sun still rose on “dies atri”; “hic niger est, hunc tu, Romane, caveto” is not a warning about black guys.
And, on the other hand, even today one writes about gaily coloured flowers without anyone having to guess what you mean.
But what you’re calling “consensus subjective meaning” is simply the definition of “objective” meaning in language. Meaning is established by consensus usage, so it is objective - it is not a matter of individual personal opinion. Meaning is established empirically by observing the objective facts of usage in a community of speakers.
Is this semantics within the conversation, or is this a formal linguistics thing? I’m very much an enthusiastic layperson on the subject so I’m sure there are a million gaps in what I know.
An objective observation is that “pop” means soda in some parts of the country but not in others. Does that mean that “pop” has multiple objective meanings, or that its meaning is subjective based on who is speaking to whom? Or both at once?
When I think “objective,” I think of something like 2+2=4. No bias or personal experience can change this objective statement.
Sure, provided you don’t take your example to imply that something objective must be some kind of constant universal truth that is necessarily the same in all times and places. Because that is not what the word means. Here’s the first definition of the word “objective” that comes up in google, which looks pretty good to me:
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
I’m just making the point that we figure out what words mean (whether instinctively when acquiring language or technically as amateur linguists) empirically by observing the objective facts of their usage in the community of speakers.
The fact that meaning is objective also does not imply that it’s necessarily clear-cut easy to pin down. It may be in flux, it may differ among social subgroups, we may not all agree on what we think we have observed as the objective facts of usage - as seen in this thread. But the principle remains that meaning is an empirical question, words have objective meaning, we do not subjectively just get to use them with own personal idiosyncratic meanings if we hope to communicate effectively. Nobody has a problem accepting this for a word like “cat”, but for some reason people often do seem to think they can ignore the complex semantic baggage of words like “queer” and claim that they can use them with any meaning they choose, because nobody is the boss of them, and it’s not their fault if miscommunication ensues.
The interesting thing, of course, is that volition (i.e. subjective opinion) clearly does matter in driving the evolution of language. A younger generation wanting differentiate themselves socially from the old fogeys, for example. But I don’t think this contradicts the claim that words have objective meaning. Although every change in language must have started with some individual who first spoke in that novel way (whether intentionally or not), whether a “mutation” in language ultimately becomes established as an evolutionary change is a mysterious process of spontaneous consensus-forming across a large community of speakers that’s beyond the power of any individual (or prescriptivist committee) to control to any significant extent. It’s viral. I think this is true even with the explicit paradigm of trying to change the language by reclaiming a word like “queer”. An individual or group of people can have the idea to try to reclaim a word based on subjective motivation, but what ultimately “takes” and becomes established as consensus usage in the broad community of speakers is a viral process, and certainly something that we can observe objectively.
It’s a pretty closely related to a common rule of thumb for referring to marginalized people. It’s often called “people first” terminology. Some prefer to literally put the “person” first, as in, “person who has a disability.” Others are fine with adjective first, as long as person is in there.
So: person who is black; black people, not “blacks.”
I would say with “queer” it safest to use as “people who identify as queer.” If that doesn’t work for the intended purpose, it might be best to rethink. Sometimes it is the best word for the job, but I think using it as a noun is always going to be troublesome to at least some people if your audience is big enough.
For the record, I’d never use “queer” as a noun to describe myself or others, and I’d be offended if someone called me that. Thank you for postulating why most people feel this way, and outlining the “people first” concept.
As a modnote was issued and not a warning. I think that’s appropriate. If you are reading this thread and you were not aware that “queer” as a noun is offensive/taboo in this community, use the opportunity to make a note of it.
I personally have no opinion on queer as a noun. The term growing up was gay and my only experience with queer (noun) is from old books and movies. It makes sense that it could be offensive since usually queer (adjective) means weird or strange.
Though, it was initially an actual warning, which was then downgraded to a modnote by What_Exit, after consultation with the other moderators, and reviewing the discussion in this thread.
