>> ^bareboards2:

What I find funny is your use of the word "merkin" as slang for American.
From Wiki: A merkin (first use 1617)[1] is a pubic wig. Merkins were originally worn by prostitutes after shaving their genitalia, and are nowadays used as decorative items or in film making.

>> ^Deano:
>> ^Trancecoach:
Daddy's coming home in a box either way.

I thought that was darkly comic, certainly appeals to my English sense of humour. I imagine many merkins might not take it especially well...



LOL, this is SO going in the "You learn stg new..." talk.

>> ^bareboards2:

What I find funny is your use of the word "merkin" as slang for American.
From Wiki: A merkin (first use 1617)[1] is a pubic wig. Merkins were originally worn by prostitutes after shaving their genitalia, and are nowadays used as decorative items or in film making.

>> ^Deano:
>> ^Trancecoach:
Daddy's coming home in a box either way.

I thought that was darkly comic, certainly appeals to my English sense of humour. I imagine many merkins might not take it especially well...



I learned what "merkins" are... no wonder they voted for Bush!

What I find funny is your use of the word "merkin" as slang for American.

From Wiki: A merkin (first use 1617)[1] is a pubic wig. Merkins were originally worn by prostitutes after shaving their genitalia, and are nowadays used as decorative items or in film making.


>> ^Deano:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Daddy's coming home in a box either way.

I thought that was darkly comic, certainly appeals to my English sense of humour. I imagine many merkins might not take it especially well...

>> ^messenger:

You met one guy once who was brilliant at languages, and somehow that proves... what?
Why are you so angry anyway? >> ^smooman:
>> ^messenger:
He is an American citizen, and not an English native speaker. No matter how long he spends in the country (with no official language), he will never achieve native speaker level. Never.
bull fucking shit. My interpreter in afghanistan who has never left the country spoke fluently 6 languages and when he spoke english with us, he spoke it like an american (slang, etc). There was literally nothing that we could say to him that he wouldnt understand or not be able to interpret. he learned pashtu from growing up, he learned dari, english, oordu, and arabic from school, he learned to be fluent in those languages from speaking with native speakers of those languages.



that was just my interpreter. almost all of our interpreters were that apt for language. I also knew two mexican immigrants who joined the army to gain citizenship that were in my squad who didnt speak a word of english when they joined. 2 years later they were fluent. and what it proves is that your stance that one could never achieve native speaker level is bullshit.

furthermore in what way is my annecdote different from yours? (what, so you know one guy who has taken 3000 hours of english and just cant learn it so therefor almost every immigrant must find speaking english "natively" impossible?)


PS: im always angry =(

You met one guy once who was brilliant at languages, and somehow that proves... what?

Why are you so angry anyway? >> ^smooman:

>> ^messenger:
He is an American citizen, and not an English native speaker. No matter how long he spends in the country (with no official language), he will never achieve native speaker level. Never.
bull fucking shit. My interpreter in afghanistan who has never left the country spoke fluently 6 languages and when he spoke english with us, he spoke it like an american (slang, etc). There was literally nothing that we could say to him that he wouldnt understand or not be able to interpret. he learned pashtu from growing up, he learned dari, english, oordu, and arabic from school, he learned to be fluent in those languages from speaking with native speakers of those languages.

>> ^messenger:

Further, some people simply cannot learn second languages well, no matter how long they work at it. I'm a teacher of English as a second language, and though it's rare, I have seen several students who simply cannot learn the language no matter how hard they study. One highly intelligent friend of mine has been in full-time English language classes for three years (over 3000 hours) while living in an English speaking country, but is only comfortable with basic "How-are-you-my-name-is" type of conversations. He just has a block, and if he ever wants to give a deposition in Canada, he's going to have to do it through an interpreter.
He's not an asshole.


In the army, if your mos requires language training you take a Defense Language Aptitude Battery. The DLAB is designed to test ones affinity to learn languages. The scoring is done in a way that if you score low, it does not mean you are not apt to learn languages but rather that the more complex ones are out of your aptitude. similarly if you score high you are more able to learn complex languages such as chinese, arabic, or, in this case english.

english is a difficult language to learn fluently with its complex grammar rule systems. throw in local slang and colloquialisms and youve got a recipe for a difficult language to master.

my point being, your friend who has taken 3000 hours of english instruction and is still not comfortable with anything more than common greetings and such may have much more success and be more comfortable with a simpler language such as french or german

>> ^messenger:

He is an American citizen, and not an English native speaker. No matter how long he spends in the country (with no official language), he will never achieve native speaker level. Never.

bull fucking shit. My interpreter in afghanistan who has never left the country spoke fluently 6 languages and when he spoke english with us, he spoke it like an american (slang, etc). There was literally nothing that we could say to him that he wouldnt understand or not be able to interpret. he learned pashtu from growing up, he learned dari, english, oordu, and arabic from school, he learned to be fluent in those languages from speaking with native speakers of those languages.

>> ^Sagemind:

I think of the word gay as something fun, the way the word was intended.
Time and culture is re-defining the word.
When I hear it used to describe something not cool, I often think of Michael Jackson's "Bad". Meaning the slang intention of describing something using the opposite term. (wow, That's "Sick!")


OK, a couple of things here. First off, I think it's generally fine when a word's meaning gradually changes, as in the words "bad" or "cool" (even "nice" used to mean something else, way back when), and I'm not generally opposed to language evolving. When a word changes so that its connotations become negative, in the case of a word used to describe a minority, it is damaging to members of that minority.

The major point I want to make is that the word "gay" has the connotations of "generally bad" because of the homophobia of many of those who use it that way. To these people, "Gay" has come to mean "generally bad" because being gay (ie being a homosexual) is bad. This is one change in the language that shouldn't pass without protest, just as we wouldn't tolerate the use of the word "jewish" should kids start using it to refer to things they think are bad, as in "I hated that film, man, it was so jewish". If that started happening, I think the opposition to this new usage would be a lot stronger than it is for "gay".

Also, I don't believe for a minute that the first meaning that comes into your head when you hear the word "gay" is "happy" or "something fun", unless you're a time traveller from the 1930s.

>> ^Sagemind:

Not so much as using "reverse gendered" individuals as the target but taking an innocent word, meaning good and great and fun and turning it around to mean un-good, un-great or un-fun.
Gay people need to realize that the term was there before they started using it and it has a true meaning, even if they are upstaging it.


You have the wrong end of the stick there. The history of the word "gay" as applied to homosexuality started as a polite euphemism for homosexuals, particularly those flamboyant individuals for whom its connotations of "happy and merry" and "homosexual" would have been most apt. Gay people did not start using the term themselves until after it had been applied to them. The community didn't just start using this new connotation of "gay" and decide that everyone should go along with it, any more than Native Americans walked up to the colonists upon landing and introduce themselves as redskins or Indians. Therefore "gay" doesn't have a "true meaning" that gay people are undermining. I think the desire to prevent its mutation into a pejorative term is entirely reasonable, especially considering the gay community has still so much to fight for in terms of equal rights and the right to live without fear of prosecution.

"Reverse gendered"? Is that what you think gay people are? I'll put that down as a bad choice of words.

Ryjkyj, anyone who has truly been bullied will tell you that words can indeed hurt. We all know this; to pretend otherwise is naive, and I'm sure we've all been hurt by someone in this way. Don't forget, you can do something about being lazy, if you're lazy - I can't do anything about being gay (I tried, when I was 16: it was absurd, the girl never spoke to me again).

And I'm not just being thin-skinned. It can take a long time to get over genuine hurtful homophobic abuse, as I know from first-hand experience. Homophobic bullying can and does drive kids and adults to depression or worse, and the casual tossing around of the word "gay" by their peers to mean "bad" creates an atmosphere where even self-identifying as gay becomes fraught with unease and self-doubt.

What? so those of us that know what the word actually means can no longer use it as it is intended?
Just because some group is labeled with a term doesn't mean all other meaning goes out the window.

If some group starts getting labeled as (insert random word) guitars - do we change the meaning of the word and stop using it in it's original context? - I tend to agree with him, that it's a non-issue as long as we deem it so. Make an issue of it and it becomes an issue. Words can have more than one meaning. Use it in a slang way, it's original meant way or use it in a derogatory way and the outcome of a word can mean many things. It's all how it was intended.



>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

That's fine if the word in question doesn't identify a vulnerable group that is still fighting for acceptance and equality on an individual and global level.

I think of the word gay as something fun, the way the word was intended.
Time and culture is re-defining the word.

When I hear it used to describe something not cool, I often think of Michael Jackson's "Bad". Meaning the slang intention of describing something using the opposite term. (wow, That's "Sick!")

Not so much as using "reverse gendered" individuals as the target but taking an innocent word, meaning good and great and fun and turning it around to mean un-good, un-great or un-fun.

Gay people need to realize that the term was there before they started using it and it has a true meaning, even if they are upstaging it.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I do hate to disagree with Mr Savage, who speaks very well about the practicalities of sex, and whose opinion and good sense I generally trust and revere. But to dismiss this as simply the "evolution of language" is damaging, and in fact misses the point. The use of the word "gay" to mean anything "a bit generally rubbish" is itself founded on homophobia. Kids call things they don't like "gay" because they consider homosexuality to be undesirable; now how is that supposed to make gay kids, reluctant to come out for fear of persecution, feel about what they are? What if "Jewish", or "female" came to mean "anything a bit generally crap"? Would there be a serious and concerted effort to stamp out such a perversion of the language that a group had used to describe itself? You bet your ass there would.
And yes, "gay" used to mean something else, language evolves, blah blah. That's fine if the word in question doesn't identify a vulnerable group that is still fighting for acceptance and equality on an individual and global level.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'austin, powers, mike, myers, dr, evil, shagadelic, michael, caine, shat, on, turtle' to 'austin, powers, mike, myers, michael, caine, shat, on, turtle, cockney rhyming slang' - edited by Fusionaut

We Rubies are really [put in a word that fits the current slang and that I don't know and would sound uber stupid saying]

Thanks for the celebration!

In reply to this comment by geo321:
here's a random ruby celebration video...

Ruby Yo from packedhousedigital on Vimeo.

I believe you mean good Anneka... >> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

good advice..?

Video + Title > My Bad Day
>> ^bareboards2:

Actually, I don't even know what it means. I just like the sound of it.
I thought it was pretty stupid of me to use slang that I knew was outdated. It's even more stupid if I used it incorrectly.

>> ^blankfist:
I don't think you and I have the same definition for "gets jiggy with".

Actually, I don't even know what it means. I just like the sound of it.

I thought it was pretty stupid of me to use slang that I knew was outdated. It's even more stupid if I used it incorrectly.



>> ^blankfist:

I don't think you and I have the same definition for "gets jiggy with".