Date:  Thu, 20 Oct 1994 13:48:25 EDT

From:  LORI B BALDRIDGE <lbbald01[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]MSUACAD.MOREHEAD-ST.EDU>

Subject: Re: offending idioms



>

>     Though some males may preen at being called a "hunk" or "stud,"

> these objectifying terms can be as jarring as the older, informal term for

> a girl: "filly." Male libbers may also look askance at the use of "booty"

> as a posterior descriptive, especially when thinking of the denotative

> "loot" or "treasure." Even "groovy" has its potential as a sex offender

> when thinking of its origins as "in the groove," meaning exciting or

> stimulating, seen most strongly in song lyrics such as "shake your groove

> thing." But there seem to be two levels at which these terms work. On the

> public level of usage, offense seems to occur more readily from idiomatic

> animal comparisons like "chick." On the private level, there is, at times,

> an enjoyment, amusement, and enthusiasm for the malleability of our

> language. So on one plane, certain highland clans may take humbrage at

> "scot free" (though it has no relation to the many derogatory references to

> Scottish cheapness), while on another, the inner group enjoys a certain

> mockery of itself. And terms change from negative to positive (as in

> "yankee") or shift focus (as in "honky"). Am I making sense here? Perhaps

> I need some Dutch courage or maybe I'm just horsing around (originally a

> sexual idiom).

>









    Some animal rights activists may be offended by your use of animal references. Last year I read a book (I can't remember the exact title, but it was something like "1001 Ways to Save the Animals"), in which a whole chapter was

dedicated to erasing phrases such as "dog ugly" and "fat as a pig" from the

English language.