Words are not little pebbles that you can pick and choose between to create strings of insults you can later use in Twitter, even if bloody Webster's says so
“They” was used as a singular pronoun of indeterminate gender in the Canterbury Tales, the King James Bible, and many other places — pretty much as long as English has been around. So on that one, Webster is just catching up to the 14th century.
I agree that retraining specific meanings for certain words is often worthwhile, and that sacrificing clear terms for fear of offence is often shortsighted. But you also have to accept that usage does change, if not always for the better.
> the one or ones being addressed—used as the pronoun of the second person singular or plural in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive
As all proper English speakers know, "you" is only correctly used as a second person plural pronoun. The only correct second person singular pronoun is "thou". People only started using ÿou in the singular in the 17th century. I even caught thou using this incorrect modern definition.
Semantic slippage like "dictator" being synonymous to "tyrant". What political goal is being served by having an additional word for a concept recognized by the ancients and denounced in America since the revolution? See the seal of Virginia
If thou intendest to use the second person singular (a practice I would earnestly recommend), then I would advise thee that thou shouldst learn to decline its pronouns correctly.
May I just point out that "tyrant" and "dictator" have almost exactly the same definition, and any dictionary that equates either word with "despot" is just wrong?
With respect to 'dictator', first Sulla and the Caesar probably fatally wounded the 'temporary' part of the definition, with Caesar having himself declared Dictator for life.
I'm pretty unconvinced by your description of Franco's Spain: "a state run under emergency, temporary powers, that were not hereditary."
Sure, Franco didn't bequeath his position to Maria del Carmen. But whatever 'emergency' existed in 1939 (other than Spain being in ruins from the civil war that Franco's side had started), did said emergency still exist in 1975? And Franco's powers can only be described as temporary insofar as they were premised on his remaining alive. We should all wish for our powers and privileges to be so 'temporary'.
While having a personal preference for the types of governance we currently describe as 'democratic', I'd agree that a proper definition of 'dictator' should not be necessarily a negative one... figures that I'd consider to meet the essential qualities of dictator would include Kemal Attaturk (broadly respected), Fidel Castro (often spoken of glowingly by some on the left) and Augusto Pinochet (sometimes well spoken of by those on the right, and being a rare example of a 20th century dictator to surrender his powers).
“They” was used as a singular pronoun of indeterminate gender in the Canterbury Tales, the King James Bible, and many other places — pretty much as long as English has been around. So on that one, Webster is just catching up to the 14th century.
Love this post. Thank you for writing it.
I agree that retraining specific meanings for certain words is often worthwhile, and that sacrificing clear terms for fear of offence is often shortsighted. But you also have to accept that usage does change, if not always for the better.
Webster also foolishly defines you as:
> the one or ones being addressed—used as the pronoun of the second person singular or plural in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive
As all proper English speakers know, "you" is only correctly used as a second person plural pronoun. The only correct second person singular pronoun is "thou". People only started using ÿou in the singular in the 17th century. I even caught thou using this incorrect modern definition.
Also see: "You: Internet commenter whose mind can't comprehend the difference between semantic slippage and political manipulation"
Semantic slippage like "dictator" being synonymous to "tyrant". What political goal is being served by having an additional word for a concept recognized by the ancients and denounced in America since the revolution? See the seal of Virginia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_and_seal_of_Virginia
Is Webster just trying to besmirch the reputation of Cincinnatus?
I just love to see you back on the side of people who care about semantic propriety. I forgive your earlier missteps.
If thou intendest to use the second person singular (a practice I would earnestly recommend), then I would advise thee that thou shouldst learn to decline its pronouns correctly.
Wonderful article. You will get no quibbling from me on this.
May I just point out that "tyrant" and "dictator" have almost exactly the same definition, and any dictionary that equates either word with "despot" is just wrong?
With respect to 'dictator', first Sulla and the Caesar probably fatally wounded the 'temporary' part of the definition, with Caesar having himself declared Dictator for life.
I'm pretty unconvinced by your description of Franco's Spain: "a state run under emergency, temporary powers, that were not hereditary."
Sure, Franco didn't bequeath his position to Maria del Carmen. But whatever 'emergency' existed in 1939 (other than Spain being in ruins from the civil war that Franco's side had started), did said emergency still exist in 1975? And Franco's powers can only be described as temporary insofar as they were premised on his remaining alive. We should all wish for our powers and privileges to be so 'temporary'.
While having a personal preference for the types of governance we currently describe as 'democratic', I'd agree that a proper definition of 'dictator' should not be necessarily a negative one... figures that I'd consider to meet the essential qualities of dictator would include Kemal Attaturk (broadly respected), Fidel Castro (often spoken of glowingly by some on the left) and Augusto Pinochet (sometimes well spoken of by those on the right, and being a rare example of a 20th century dictator to surrender his powers).
Anyhow, food for thought...