Does vocabulary have negative connotations? — javi2541997

Yes.

Or are some people recklessly using language? — javi2541997

It is not either/or. The careful use of language does not result in a language free of connotations.

Yes. — Fooloso4

Why? Does apply to every single word?

The careful use of language does not result in a language free of connotations. — Fooloso4

Well, my aim in this thread is not to avoid connotations, but see language in the most objective way possible. There are a lot of words in our language, and it seems that some of them are offensive or have negative connotations. Nonetheless, this is my concern. Why do they have negative feelings? I think it is just our interpretation rather than the pure meaning of the word.

Hamlet is the paradigm buffoon. Which only adds to his greatness.

I think it is just our interpretation rather than the pure meaning of the word — javi2541997

There's no "pure meaning", it's just that we have to interpret words in the context they're used. So, to call Hamlet a buffoon might be a compliment as a literary character assessment, to call your brother a buffoon when he spills his coffee might be affectionate banter, and to refer to a political malfeasant as a buffoon might be a serious criticism. Etc.

There's no "pure meaning", it's just that we have to interpret words in the context they're used. — Baden

I agree with you. Context is important for interpreting words and some as "buffoon" may have a lot of meanings. Then, in this case, it depends on how we interpret it. Yet, I am perceiving that, words are usually interpreted in a negative way. I think (just guessing because I do not have statistics to prove it) that words as buffoon are used to disrespect someone, even when it is clear that it is separated from its real significance.
Is not possible to use words in a neutral point?

Is not possible to use words in a neutral point? — javi2541997

We don't have full control over that because meaning is always negotiated somehow between participants and context. But I think it's only necessary to be aware because then when you want to achieve something with a word like a neutral application of "buffoon" in a case where the context works against you, there are usually other options in the form of synonyms, e.g. "jester" or even "clown". Like, if you say "that guy is a clown in the local circus", the reference is happily neutral (it might not be in other circumstances), whereas "buffoon" (sense is usually something like "stupid clown") is generally derogatory and "jester" (sense is usually something like "amusing / clever clown") is generally complimentary. So, you've identified a potential problem but language has got there before you and provided a solution, that is, a bunch of synonyms where the material reference can be the same but the tone different. And in spoken language of course, you can add another layer of tone. Funny I went through this without even mentioning the word "Fool" which is another contextual can of worms that overlaps. But anyhow, cautiousness and nuance are your friends here.

whereas "buffoon" (sense is usually something like "stupid clown") is generally derogatory and "jester" (sense is usually something like "amusing / clever clown") is generally complimentary. — Baden

I just learned this important difference. Interesting how different words have varied meanings while they come from the same root, the etymology of the word "buffoon".

But anyhow, cautiousness and nuance are your friends here. — Baden

I agree! Choosing the correct words is key to maintaining a good conversation or writing, because some persons can get offended even we are not acting in bad faith using whatever words. :up:

:100:

But just because “buffoon” is often now derogatory doesn’t mean we can’t use it differently to make a point, as I’ve seen people do with the word “amateur,” which can be quite derogatory but comes from the word meaning “lover,” so an amateur is someone who does something for love, not money, and this needn’t imply a lack of skill.

So this is a kind of reclaiming. One could contrarily celebrate the role of the jester in society by proudly calling oneself a buffoon or a fool. It works for “buffoon” better than for “fool” because it retains a bit more of its less derogatory meaning.

I'm with Jamal that the word "buffoon" has negative connotations, usually meaning someone who makes a fool of themselves or an idiot. When someone hears a word being used negatively 99.9% of the time it's used, even if the word doesn't seem offensive, then one will naturally view the word as carrying hostile intent. Honestly, "clown" isn't much better.

Some words like "nerd" 15 years ago, would've automatically been considered an insult without the right context. Nowadays, since being into nerdy things or spending a lot of time on computers is standard practice, it'd be a little jarring to hear someone use "nerd" as a legitimate insult. When I was growing up, "gay" was a common insult, but now it isn't, or at least I'm pretty sure it isn't. So, it's not necessarily the word itself but the common usage of the word and the culture in which it is being used.

However, there are many words that are just outright negative, such as hysteria, delusion, manipulation, cowardice, oppression, gluttony, narcissism, bigot unloyal, traitor, brainwashing and many more. For many such words, even if you try to use them completely neutrally, they wouldn't be taken neutrally.

For these kinds of words, people may instead try to argue against the application of the word instead. Such as arguing that an act isn't cowardice, but smart. But what isn't much of an option is trying to argue that cowardice itself is smart, people have their own ideas and may not accept our intended meaning. A culture can change from seeing an act as cowardly to later seeing that same act as brave or smart, but we'll never call an act we approve of cowardly. The very fact someone chose to use the word cowardly instead of some other word strongly indicates their negative feelings.

That's exactly the most interesting aspect of vocabulary. Each word has a meaning in our dictionary. Yet, it seems that we interpret the words differently and depend more on the context. My guess goes to that the definition of a word in a dictionary is just a neutral concept, but the philosophical or spiritual meaning of such words depends on the communication between us.
Most of the words have both positive and negative connotations then.

Good points.

I noted that most of the time the words tend to have more negative connotations than positive ones. Buffoon and nerd are good examples, as you explained, even if the latter has been changing during the years and now has another significance. What I tried to understand is why some basic words like those, are used to hurt the feelings of someone. Vocabulary is supposed to be neutral, but it seems that we use it in a twisted way.

On the other hand, I agree with the fact that some words are just negative by nature. It is impossible to make neutral use of it. There is a big debate on the word "blackmail", because apart from being a negative action, it has racist connotations.
It is clear that with words like blackmail, there is no possibility to argue, but the real problem is that most of the words have more negative feelings than positive ones.

For these kinds of words, people may instead try to argue against the application of the word instead. — Judaka

I guess this is not the solution either. Skipping the use of a word needs a lot of tasks to do. It is necessary to change all the culture of society. I think it would be easier to be cautious of using them.

There is a big debate on the word "blackmail", because apart from being a negative action, it has racist connotations. — javi2541997

Dearest Javi, please don't go there! Blackmail doesn't have racist denotations or connotations any more than "black hole", "black board", "black top", or "black beans" have.

What @Baden had to say is on the mark.

I would like to add a general principle for Jamal, myself, and numerous others: Exercise at least a little generosity in interpreting the words that other people write (or say). Granted, anyone might have said something more lucidly, more graciously, more precisely, more.. whatever -- but just because you can imagine the word being misunderstood, doesn't mean the use was deficient.

hen I was growing up, "gay" was a common insult, but now it isn't, or at least I'm pretty sure it isn't. — Judaka

Gay? Queer? Homosexual? Faggot? Gender expansive? Gender Fluid? Celibate non-binary polyamorist? I'm not quite sure what constitutes an insult in this department these days, When I was coming out, "homosexual" as a legitimate self-descriptive term was shifting to "gay". 20 years later (1990, say) "gay" was shifting to "queer". "Faggot" or "Fag" was somewhat positive for a while, but now seems to have taken on more negative connotations again.

So this is a good example of where generosity should be applied. If someone says, "Homosexuals deserve equal rights." no one needs to pounce on them for using the wrong word. The sentence could have used gays or queers, but the intent (affirming equal rights) seems obvious enough.

I'm with Jamal that the word "buffoon" has negative connotations — Judaka

I would like to add a general principle for Jamal, myself, and numerous others: Exercise at least a little generosity in interpreting the words that other people write (or say). — BC

I’d like to point out that I’m being taken here to have some kind of position on this issue, but I don’t recognize it as alluded to in these comments; my main point both in the Shoutbox and in this discussion is that the word “buffoon” has an indispensably double-sided character.

Nonetheless, it seems that this word contains negative connotations because Jamal didn't like how I considered myself as a buffoon. — javi2541997

Here is the original exchange:

I would like to wish a good morning to everyone. You all already know that I am the buffoon of The Shoutbox — javi2541997

I wish you good morning but I resent your claim to be the preeminent Shoutbox buffoon. — Jamal

I was playing with the ambiguous character of the word. I was pretending to be affronted that Javi was claiming the coveted title of Shoutbox buffoon, thereby embracing the positive use of the term. At the same time this is also self-mockery, implying that I and others are fools, and in our foolishness we want to be known as buffoons. It’s dialectical.

I agree that more words have negative connotations than positive ones, but I think that's generally because the level of specificity when describing something negatively is generally higher. Often because the stakes are higher, and there are more severe implications for the word's use. It may also be due to human's natural tendency to be interested in the negatives over the positives, not sure.

I don't think language should be neutral. Its purpose is not to merely convey information, we must convey feelings and intent, and our word use has implications far beyond just information sharing. I don't think there's a problem with words being mostly negative either, why do you think so?

I guess this is not the solution either. Skipping the use of a word needs a lot of tasks to do. It is necessary to change all the culture of society. I think it would be easier to be cautious of using them. — javi2541997

I think it's unavoidable because English has a limited number of words, and sometimes the connotation can't be challenged. For example, "racism" being bad is unchallengeable, no matter what, one can never think racism is fine. If one defines racism to mean "not liking other cultures" or something silly, you can't say "Okay, well by your definition, I support that kind of racism". As it just sounds so wrong and absurd to ever say "I support racism". You need to instead argue on the basis of the definition, that they're wrong to say racism means disliking other cultures. The term "racism" is too important to give up on, the word has too much moral and political capital, and to say, "Okay, racism can mean that, I'll just make a new word" is unthinkable. Therefore, one simply has no choice but to have a debate about what is or isn't racism, even if that means disregarding the historical meaning of the word.


I live in Australia and growing up, "gay" didn't just mean homosexual. Gay was basically a substitute for "lame", and one could say a rule or place was gay, and if one was called gay, it just means "you suck". I don't know where it came from or when it started, but it was very common to hear the word used this way when I was growing up, and I'm pretty sure it was this way across the entire country.


Okay then, I would definitely say "buffoon" is purely negative, I don't think I've ever heard it used in any other way, but my mistake for assuming this was your position as well.

Dearest Javi, please don't go there! Blackmail doesn't have racist denotations or connotations any more than "black hole", "black board", "black top", or "black beans" have. — BC

BC! I think my misinterpretation of the word "blackmail" comes from an article I had read a few months ago: Words and phrases you may want to think twice about using.
Blackmail, blacklist and black sheep
"The issue here is that these are all negative terms," said Joseph Smith, an anti-racism trainer and educator. "[It] connotes evil, distrust, lack of intelligence, ignorance, a lack beauty — the absence of white." "[Black] became associated with a particular group of people, and that group of people received all that negative connotation. That's why we try to move away from these kinds of terms."

At the same time this is also self-mockery, implying that I and others are fools, and in our foolishness we want to be known as buffoons. It’s dialectical. — Jamal

I agree with your point. But that's how we interpret "buffoon" or "jester" in modern times, as Baden already posted previously. Yet, this is the main problem I wanted to explain in this thread. Why did these words end up in such a negative feeling?
Nowadays, calling someone a buffoon is an insult.

I did a research and a buffoon (also known as a court jester) was considered as a "member of the household of a nobleman or a monarch employed to entertain guests during the medieval and Renaissance eras". Nonetheless, you are right in the fact that modern use has negative connotations, because the paper says: The term is now frequently used in a derogatory sense to describe someone considered foolish, or someone displaying inappropriately vulgar, bumbling or ridiculous behavior which is a source of general amusement.

I would definitely say "buffoon" is purely negative, I don't think I've ever heard it used in any other way, — Judaka

I think this is because in our significantly Protestant Anglo culture*, being silly is frowned upon, regarded as frivolous and trivial. I believe the role of the jester, clown, fool, or buffoon is embraced by some entertainers though, and these words still retain some of their positive connotations as a kind of background significance.

But as I later said to Javi, we wouldn't want buffoonery to be entirely socially acceptable anyway, because it would then lose it's potential subversiveness. The buffoon undermines serious pretensions.

*To label as “Protestant” or “Anglo” the culture I’m talking about, the industrious culture of seriousness and the refusal of fun, is probably totally wrong, but it doesn’t matter.

Nonetheless, you are right in the fact that modern use has negative connotations — javi2541997

I didn't really make that claim and it's not something I would make a point of in this case. I think we all know that it's usually derogatory.

But as I later said to Javi, we wouldn't want buffoonery to be entirely socially acceptable anyway, because it would then lose it's potential subversiveness. The buffoon undermines serious pretensions. — Jamal

@javi2541997

So, the interesting question for me is: can a word find positive connotations through its negative connotations?

. It may also be due to human's natural tendency to be interested in the negatives over the positives, not sure. — Judaka

:up:

I don't think there's a problem with words being mostly negative either, why do you think so? — Judaka

More than a problem, I see it as a bad interpretation of the words. What I intended to do is make a research into the etymology of some words such as "buffoon", "blackmail", or the Japanese word "sankokujin" as appears in the OP. Most of them are old words and if we study the "real" or "neutral" meaning, it seems to don't have any problems.

The problem begins (in my humble opinion) when people make a twisted use of such words because "buffoon" is just a mediaeval clown, but we interpret someone who is a fool.
The same happens with "sankokujin". It just refers to people from Korea but somehow it is discriminatory towards them, etc...

So, the interesting question for me is: can a word find positive connotations through its negative connotations? — Jamal

Wow, good question Jamal.

I think yes, it is possible to do so. But it will depend a lot on the context and how the word is socially accepted nowadays. @Judaka set a good example towards the word "nerd." Back in the day, it had negative connotations, but it seems that the modern use is positive. This word shows the fact that the meaning has switched over the past few years, and if this happens, it is something that depends on us.

That's a great example. In these cases it’s not always just a “switch”; it’s because the word is negative, signifying for example an outsider status, that it becomes positive.

It’s debatable if this is what happened with “nerd” or if this is all that happened with it—what’s good about being a nerd is not only some minority outsider subversive thing but actual knowledge, and dedication to something valuable—but I think some words are like that. Maybe the reclamation of racist and homophobic slurs, e.g., queer, is similar.

Ok I have more to say. It seems like some words, such as “nerd”, “queer”, and the N-word (not against the rules to mention this word explicitly in quotes but I find myself unable to do it)—these have switched sides, sometimes within a group and sometimes in the wider society. But it seems to me that “buffoon” has an essential double character and that we’d lose something if it became entirely positive.

Of course, I don’t really believe it has an essential character or even that we wouldn’t replace it with similarly double-sided words if it did go mainstream, but I think this may indeed identify different classes of words.

I am very familiar with the viewpoint discussed in the article and I reject it as being, well, just plain stupid. It falls into the same category as saying "pregnant people" rather than pregnant women. Last I checked, women were the only people getting pregnant--no exceptions.

Here's another example: Niggardly. No doubt the literalists would look at this and deem it racist! Niggardly means stingy, ungenerous, and meager. The word comes from Old Norse and Old English and has absolutely nothing to do with the offensive word 'nigger' it resembles. Nonetheless, I used niggardly once and a politically correct adult nearly fainted.

Why don't we just ban the word "black" altogether?

We don't do that because even a slightly clever child will understand that if you are talking about a "black hole" in physics, or putting "black dirt" on the garden, or having a "black eye" these words have nothing to do with race. Similarly, there is nothing racist about white chalk and a black board, or publishing a white paper on the economy, or keeping favorite telephone numbers in a little black book, or for women, buying that 'little black dress'.

A whole series of words have been applied to Americans who originated in Africa : niggers, negroes, colored(s), colored people, African Americans, blacks, people of color, and are now included in BIPOC. I'm sure more will be added.

and the N-word (not against the rules to mention this word explicitly in quotes but I find myself unable to do it) — Jamal

To be honest, I wanted to use the N-word as an example in my thread. But I am completely aware that is very negative and racist. The etymology of the word comes from Spanish in the colonial era, and it was copied by British sailors and pirates. Nowadays, this word is no longer in use, except for racist people. We only say "africano" = African.

But it seems to me that “buffoon” has an essential double character and that we’d lose something if it became entirely positive. — Jamal

Agree!  I cannot add more to your argument.

A whole series of words have been applied to Americans who originated in Africa : niggers, negroes, colored(s), — BC

As I explained to Jamal, this word comes from Spanish, actually. It was used by Spanish sailors to refer to African people. The word is "negro," and some sailors mispronounced it when they said "negroe." Nowadays, it is considered offensive in Spanish, so we just say "African."

On the other hand, I agree with your points. Stupidity takes place when some persons are obsessed with changing all the vocabulary of a language because they think everything is offensive. I am against those arguments, and I already pointed out why in another thread. Nonetheless, I think that the real problem here is how some people use words in a twisted manner.
It will only be"offensive" if the interlocutor is acting in bad faith. Thus, when it is clear that the word was used with the aim of hurting someone, attending to the context.

You can't properly understand words if you just look at the literal definition. The term "Sangokujin" is written 三国人 which literally translates to third-country person or third-world person. It's clearly not a nice way to refer to a Korean living in Japan, and I can understand why people would take offence. In Japanese, you can refer to foreigners as 外人 or 外国人 which translate pretty much the same, but the latter is a more formal and respectful term, and the former is a bit disrespectful. The idea of having formal and informal words is a core part of that language, and there are many ways of saying the same thing which have very different meanings due to the level of formality.

Many racial slurs have no meaning whatsoever, they simply refer to a person's belonging to a race. But the term is known to be offensive, and someone would only use a slur to be offensive, and so the meaning is very clear. Many words are like that. One word says "you are this thing" and the other says "you are this thing and being that thing is bad and I'm insulting you" and that's commonly understood by native speakers.

This is just normal practice in language, and it'd actually get you into a lot of trouble if you tried to enforce the neutrality of words.

Of course, I don’t really believe it has an essential character or even that we wouldn’t replace it with similarly double-sided words if it did go mainstream, but I think this may indeed identify different classes of words. — Jamal

I wonder if you'd agree that it's quite easy to use words with positive connotations negatively than vice versa? By using sarcasm, tone or context. I would say "comedian" is a word with positive connotations, people like comedians and being funny is generally seen very positively. But imagine a teacher addressing a student as a "comedian" in a stern tone when they've been disruptive, the connotation is clearly negative.

It's much harder to make words with negative connotations sound positive, as you'd never describe the behaviour using that negative word if you wanted to make it seem positive, and so it's jarring to be praised for something bad. For instance, If someone ran away from a fight, you'd call them a coward if you disapproved and smart if you approved, simple as that really. You can't say "I'm so proud of your cowardice" or something, it's just impossible in most cases.

I also think it's important to remember that we don't need to rely on a single word's connotations. Saying "you're a pathetic nerd" would make it clear that the word "nerd" here isn't being used as praise, regardless of the positive connotations the word might have.

Yep, as a practical matter all of that’s no doubt accurate. I just find the exceptions more interesting, like amateur and (I want to say) buffoon. It looks like the difference between negative to positive and positive to negative is…

I’ll use an example:

If one wants to emphasize that an amateur does something for the love, not the money, and need not be less good at it (photography is a good example because probably most professional photographers spend their working lives doing weddings and don’t have time for anything artistic or challenging)—then one is going to call oneself an amateur, and would be more careful about using it to describe someone else. You’d have to qualify it: “you’re an amateur, and that’s something to be proud of, because it means you do it for the love of it”.