rec.autos.simulators

I find the English language, its construction and usage, and the changes
that occur to be of interest. Whether or not there I have "better" things to
wonder about is entirely up to me!

The "language" did not "evolve" when it came to the bastardisation of the
two words used as examples.......the words pre-existed, they were not
produced from other words.  The meanings did not "evolve"....they were
invented.

.  And Hawthorne's

I quite agree about the driving <yeah>. It is just a shame <you know wot I
mean> that future generations will make assumptions when they read the
<cool>stone
though <ok>. As it stands, youngsters are seen to have quite a giggle at it
as they pass by <right>. My grammar and command of language <Yeah> is far
from perfect but I'm afraid that I'm with Bruce when it comes to opinions in
this area. I'm not going to get into symantics over one word however. Nah
wot I mean yeah.<wicked>

Mark ;-)

M

Racing on a track is one thing, but since he could quite easily have
killed the occupants of an oncoming car this was not something that
should be admired IMHO.

Rob mentioned this in a Road and Track article on about some of the cars
Rob owned.

Dave

Sorry to go on about this, but it really made me angry when I read a
newspaper article by some sycophantic journalist who actually admired
Mike Hawthorne for his "devil-may-care" attitude.  I respect his right
to take risks on his own behalf, but he should respect other people's
wish NOT to take risks!

I guess he paid the ultimate price in the end, and perhaps that was the
way he would have wanted to go: I'd probably have admired someone who
risked their own life for some great achievement (eg. climbing Everest
or whatever), but it's the cavalier attitude to other people's lives
that I find unacceptable.

Well, he can be an unofficial mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. <grin>   :)

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
-- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
-- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
-- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
-- May the Downforce be with you...

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

--

Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Your pretty good at it  most of the time also.

*Half-plonk*

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
-- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
-- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
-- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
-- May the Downforce be with you...

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Anthony Bulloch

As I pointed out in another post, the word "gay" *has* evolved.

And yes, Bruce, the meanings "were there"--they were there ready and waiting
to be slipped *just a bit* to point towards a new marker.  Because (read
this part carefully) they already included in their connotations references
to behaviors with which ***s were associated in culturally-powerful
stereotypes.

BK mentions "bastardization."  Just when did the bastardization occur,
Bruce?  When someone first used the word "gay" to mean a bit over-the-top
instead of "simply happy" (no doubt this pioneer, this ***erer, threw
aside his/her copy of Bruce Kennewall, Esq.'s _A True and Strict
Lexicographie of All the Words in the English Tongue, with their Sundry
Secondary and Evil Corruptive Meanings Physicked and Purged_).

Give me a break, Bruce.  Your position is untenable, and tiresome. And just
a bit cruel.

According to my OED, since the 17C at least, "gay" has had connotations of
excess, of being descriptive of those "addicated to pleasure"  (that is to
say, for the last well-nigh four-hundred years anyway, it hasn't "simply"
meant 'happy' at all--it's been a code for "effeminacy").  By the very early
part of this now-ending century, that usage had slipped to include
euphemistic references to ***ity (and I imagine that slippage was
generated at *least* as much by straights as it was by gays).  It's not a
new development.

But since the late-fifties, and more strongly in the sixties and then after
Stonewall, Gays seem to have appropriated this once-derogatory term as a
marker of identity and pride.  That process too, is nothing new.

In fact, since you're so interested in (and I quote) "the English language,
its construction and usage, and the changes that occur," I'm sure can find
other instances of this type of appropriation (hint: sans-colouttes,
Jacobins, Yankees, etc.)

But--surprise--this one somehow stuck out.

Your anxiety is showing.  After all, the rhetorical strategy behind the
formulation "If ***ity is nothing to be ashamed about, how come .
.blah blah blah" is a not-so-subtle way of saying it is indeed shameful, eh?
You offer the concluding clause as lurking, potential "proof" of your
supposition.  And again, the "perfectly good" word (gay=simply happy) is
"now" something different (***ity).  A tale of corruption!  Bruce
gives us the Edenic Fall of an innocent word!

But wait, let's suppose "they" are hiding (maybe some do).  Let's suppose
"they" (all these like-minded automatons) do want to avoid the explicit
reference to ***ity and "the dirty stuff."  Why on earth would "they"
do that except out of that barely-hidden Shame which BK so masterfully
uncovers?

Welllll . . . how about insecurity of employment?  How about social
exclusion?  How about mortal fear?

DK

One of those mods concerned the rear track, which Hawthorn considered as
being "too narrow ".  This observation was agreed with by the Jaguar
engineers and, on the next version of the Mk. II, the track was increased.

He died not because of stupidity but because he was driving at the limit of
the car, not himself,