zompist bboard

As you may be aware, there is a certain word (which I am of course far above stooping to utter here) which is well known to be the most phonaesthetically unappealing word in the English language. This has been much commented on, and you might be tempted to say that, as with all unpopular turns of phrase, it will gradually pass into disuse and enter the annals of other such obsolete terms as "zounds" and "copacetic". To you I say: I pity you, to be so on the wrong side of history. We, on the other hand, as progressive and socially responsible citizens, recognize this for what it is: no mere triviality like the rules of checkers or of the sport of cruising, this is an urgent matter of pressing and public importance about which Something Must Be Done. What shall you say to your children and grandchildren when, many years hence, sitting upon your knee in the perfectly just end-of-history society that Our Generation shall bequeath them, they look up and ask: Grandfather, what did you do during the war? Were you part of the glorious wave of change, or did you sit idly by tolerating injustice, raising no arms against it?

This is a trial of moral progress greater perhaps than any history has ever known. It is us, our generation, who have been tasked with this mighty responsibility. So let me be the first-- of many, no doubt!-- to say that I will be silent no more! Evil must never be tolerated-- let us be rid of this unspeakable word! Let all the dictionaries that list it be tossed into the rivers and let all who speak it be thrown to the dogs! Let its memory be blasted from all the histories, that our descendants may be blessed with never knowing its damnable face ever existed at all! Viva la revolucion!

The Long Arc of Linguistic Justice will guide us toward salvation.

I remember reading somewhere, probably on Language Log, about a guy working as a teacher who used the m-word and was informed by his students that that word was considered derogatory and offensive to women. People really, really don't like that word.

Edit: found it: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 05057.html
Edit again with the actual quote:

A student in my Shakespeare class announced that the word "moist" (which I had uttered to describe Egypt in Antony & Cleopatra) is offensive to women. Some of the other women in the class concurred (not hostilely--just as a matter of information for a clueless male professor). I was somewhat flabbergasted, and nobody would articulate a reason for the offensiveness--except for one male student's eventual suggestion that the word reminds women of sexual arousal. That association is not at all beside-the-point of my description of Egypt in the play--but why would such a connotation make the word offensive per se? As far as I could ascertain, "damp" and "wet" don't carry whatever stigma attaches to "moist." What am I missing here?!

I was not aware that moist was considered derogatory by anyone until reading the above post, and from googling the word supposedly it is used to derogatorily refer to men as homosexual. IDGI.

Travis B. wrote:I was not aware that moist was considered derogatory by anyone until reading the above post, and from googling the word supposedly it is used to derogatorily refer to men as homosexual. IDGI.

It must be an Americanism surely?

Travis B. wrote:I was not aware that moist was considered derogatory by anyone until reading the above post, and from googling the word supposedly it is used to derogatorily refer to men as homosexual. IDGI.

This comes as news to this homosexual man. But maybe I'm not the target demographic.

I think the "moist" thing must be one of those american preoccupations, like meth and pentecostalism. I've never had anybody around here comment on it, but Americans seem to froth at the mouth about the word.

Personally, I think it's a nice word. And much, much more pleasant than "damp".

In the wise words of Gandalf, "“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world."

Salmoneus wrote:I think the "moist" thing must be one of those american preoccupations, like meth and pentecostalism. I've never had anybody around here comment on it, but Americans seem to froth at the mouth about the word.

Personally, I think it's a nice word. And much, much more pleasant than "damp".

Anything that is an American preoccupation will sooner or later become a preoccupation of the world. Be prepared.
And I like that word. Never understood why people don't like the sound of it.

hwhatting wrote:And I like that word. Never understood why people don't like the sound of it.

I've always understood that "damp" refers primarily to unwanted moisture (as in "The clothes are still damp" or "There is damp creeping up your wallpapers") so "dampen the pie" doesn't really work as either a baking instruction or sexual innuendo.

@ gach - sorry, I was talking about "moist", not damp.

OK, I agree that it's a quite satisfying word.

Salmoneus wrote:Personally, I think it's a nice word. And much, much more pleasant than "damp".

I've never understood how people who dislike "moist" describe the consistency of a good cake. It's certainly not "damp" or "humid" and "soggy" is something else altogether. I suppose they fall back on litotes?

I do not get the idea that moist has sexual connotations. To me, wet definitely has strong sexual connotations in certain contexts, whereas moist to me is, as linguoboy mentions, a word for describing things like cakes and so on.

linguoboy wrote:

Salmoneus wrote:Personally, I think it's a nice word. And much, much more pleasant than "damp".

I've never understood how people who dislike "moist" describe the consistency of a good cake. It's certainly not "damp" or "humid" and "soggy" is something else altogether. I suppose they fall back on litotes?

Spongy?

I think of spongy as being different from moist.

mèþru wrote:I think of spongy as being different from moist.

Spongy is the proper texture for, well, sponge cake, but would be odd in other cakes (e.g. pound cake) which should nonetheless still be moist. Still, it would work in a pinch.

It might depend on the pronunciation.

People in my area (Delaware) pronounce it like /mõiçt/, the õ being a nasal /ɔ/. I've also heard /mõiçtj/

Delawarians also pronounce their R's like /œw/ So "moisture" would be pronounced like /mõiçtjœw/.

Talk about disgusting.

cunningham wrote:It might depend on the pronunciation.

People in my area (Delaware) pronounce it like /mõiçt/, the õ being a nasal /ɔ/. I've also heard /mõiçtj/

Delawarians also pronounce their R's like /œw/ So "moisture" would be pronounced like /mõiçtjœw/.

Talk about disgusting.

I thought my dialect was odd!

Hmm, yeah, we should totally replace moist with turgid.

cunningham wrote:It might depend on the pronunciation.

People in my area (Delaware) pronounce it like /mõiçt/, the õ being a nasal /ɔ/. I've also heard /mõiçtj/

Delawarians also pronounce their R's like /œw/ So "moisture" would be pronounced like /mõiçtjœw/.

Talk about disgusting.

lying is immoral

thetha wrote:

cunningham wrote:It might depend on the pronunciation.

People in my area (Delaware) pronounce it like /mõiçt/, the õ being a nasal /ɔ/. I've also heard /mõiçtj/

Delawarians also pronounce their R's like /œw/ So "moisture" would be pronounced like /mõiçtjœw/.

Talk about disgusting.

lying is immoral

I highly doubt that anyone here really believes cunningham speaks that way.

Don't be silly. It's still a lie even if no one believes it.

I think Travis's point is that it is not intended to deceive. I, on the other hand, find it quite plauible.

Travis B. wrote:I was not aware that moist was considered derogatory by anyone until reading the above post, and from googling the word supposedly it is used to derogatorily refer to men as homosexual. IDGI.

The sort of people who take university classes in Shakespeare, particularly in America, seem to live in a curious little world of their own and are probably not worth paying too much attention to.