TheKansaiKid
後輩
- 18 Mar 2005
- 92
- 16
Actually, I came across earlier references from the OED:lexico said:Since the word is a neologism, and there are many words that combine non-Greek words with the Greek -phobia "fear," the etymological reasoning has little substance. Two points that I do not know is whether
1) homophobia was never used before Weinberg in his 1971 book;
2) if it were, was the usage the same as in the current usage.
Perhaps you don't mean linguistic, but etymological? For the etymology see above. Linguistically, IMO correct as such doesn't really exist (for modern descriptive linguistics, that is). Correct is everything that can be understood.alexriversan said:well fear of human people is the correct linguistic meaning.
Where did you get this one from? Chimps, Orangs & Gorillas are our relatives, not our ancestors.it is the suffix within the race labelling systems: if one beliefs we have chimpanzee/orang-utan and gorilla ancestors.
Excellent, excellent ! I love you bossel for your brainy composition. These are things that make history move forward. My respects and thanks.bossel said:Actually, I came across earlier references from the OED:
"1920 Chambers's Jrnl. 5 June 418/1 Her salient characteristic was a contempt for the male sex as represented in the human biped... The seeds of homophobia had been sown early.
1960 T. KORA in Koestler's Lotus & Robot II. 213 Of nervosity symptoms, homophobia appears most frequently. In this is included fear of blushing when appearing before a person, or erythrophobia, feeling of getting stiff or oppressed before an individual."
The term in its current meaning may have 1st appeared 1969 in Time Magazine.
I know Alex can answer for himself, but interestingly I have some insight into his language. By choice, he obscures the current, ordinary language for the purpose of enriching it. It is Socratic in essence. I could be wrong. It could mean many more things, or less.Bossel said:Perhaps you don't mean linguistic, but etymological? For the etymology see above. Linguistically, IMO correct as such doesn't really exist (for modern descriptive linguistics, that is). Correct is everything that can be understood.
Where did you get this one from? Chimps, Orangs & Gorillas are our relatives, not our ancestors.
BTW, are you confusing affix, prefix & suffix?
well i should have looked up linguistic before usage. i do most times, but not always.bossel said:Perhaps you don't mean linguistic, but etymological? For the etymology see above. Linguistically, IMO correct as such doesn't really exist (for modern descriptive linguistics, that is). Correct is everything that can be understood.
the DNA tree is a system of scientific belief. humas and primates have derived from common ancestors.bossel said:Where did you get this one from? Chimps, Orangs & Gorillas are our relatives, not our ancestors.
well i can manage prefix and suffix, but affix?bossel said:BTW, are you confusing affix, prefix & suffix?
Socratic, hmmm? You mean the maieutic part? I don't see much evidence for that.lexico said:It is Socratic in essence.
alexriversan said:the DNA tree is a system of scientific belief.
Er..., human beings are primates (hence common ancestors are only to be expected).humas and primates have derived from common ancestors.
Affix is the superordinate concept for prefix & suffix (& infix, but this is the least common in English).well i can manage prefix and suffix, but affix?
betting large sums on horses, living in a luxurious house, drinking wine all day: that's GHEY. not to forget the tarot card seances.cacawate said:1. ghey
An excuse for using the term "Gay" in a negative way, without seeming to be offensive. However, changing the spelling of the word doesn't change how offensive it can still be to homosexuals.
Person1: That's ghey!
Person2: Dude, don't use that word.
Person1: But I'm spelling it g-h-e-y.
Person2: Dude, that doesn't matter, it's still offensive.
Person1: Well, that's ghey!
Person2 thwacks Person1
cacawate said:This reminds me of a conversation I had the other day with my co-worker. He said he hated gay people and I asked him if he hated all gay people, even lesbians. He said, "Oh! No, lesbians are fine! I just hate gay people." Later I convinced him that he has to hate lesbians as they are gay also. Think about that mindset.
Why do more people (In my experience) except gay women over men? I have even met a few girls that would rather watch lesbian porn over gay male porn, saying it was 'disgusting'. I apologize for hijacking this thread, Lexico. I'll try and make up a more well-rounded one in the social section.
By the way, I convinced my co-worker that he didn't hate gay people, by asking him if he thought God hated gay people. He responded, "No, he just dissaproves of them". Which is what my co-worker does, now. That's one step closer to acceptance, I think.
-Jeff
lexico said:I am only asking this because I understood at least one stream of US culture to be tolerant of homosexualtiy. If not, I was greatly mistaken and consequently overestimated the level of social progress that US had achieved by the late 1980's, early 1990's.
Thus, many homosexual males can say 'fag' and 'queer' to one another, but if someone else does, that's a problem.
It doesn't seem usual...sowieso, leben sie in Deutschland. Da gibt es sehr viel Formalitat. Zum Beispiel, in Deutschland da gibt es sehr wenig body contact (ich weiss es nicht auf Deutschi would say it means:
"fear of heterosexual males of appearing not to be grossed out by the fact that a male or homosexual comes to close"
^ ^
= the reason why males don't like to sleep in one bed (even if its triple double king megasized) on a trip or so even if its their good friend and they know hes not gay
or so?
i am confused