No before the homosexual connotation came in it meant light hearted and carefree, brightly coloured or showy. Someone who thinks that any of those facets of a person, thing or activity are flattering might say that he or she looks 'cool' but if they think they make the person look ridiculous they might say he or she looks 'gay'... or 'pants'.

km

So I guess that all that quotation of meanings from the 14th century onward is irrelevant in the question of what what the word means or can mean?

Well my theory is only linked to definitions of which persons who use the world 'gay' are aware.

km

A little mind reading, then?

Without ever replying to my post, but in order to strengthen your - for lack of a better word - argument, in all posts after mine you have started to make references to people being described as "gay" to mean uncool etc. when, as I stated in my previous post (and which was reflected in your usage as well before my last post) "gay" in the uncool sense of the word is used to describe a thing or action, and not a person. I am humbled to at least have had an impact on your discourse, even if you won't acknowledge me directly. Flattery will get you nowhere, however.

Now let me be clear, I understand why you didn't reply to my post beyond surreptitiously widening the usage of the "uncool" meaning of gay in your subsequent posts. It would indeed be uncomfortable to defend obstinately using a word that has become derogatory with the disingenuous pretense that it is more PC (Precisely Correct).

You're right about the term not being applied to people in that pejorative sense, lanovami. I'm not a linguist but I have a sense of how linguistic drift works, and I suspect that it would be really difficult to have a term that already means one thing when applied to people come to have a second, very different meaning in the same lexical environment. I think that's especially true when among kids being gay is becoming increasingly a fine and dandy choice. At least in the US, anyway.

Minus the comprehension...

The last time I heard it used was in March when I was taking a photograph of my students in a pub up there in Whitehall - one of the kids who wasn't in the shot came out with "try not to look so gay". That didn't mean "try not to look so homosexual" but "try not to look so ridiculous" so, yes, the term is applied in a light-hearted non-derogatory non sexual sense to persons as well as to things or actions. It's not correct to say that your more limited scope for the word was previously "reflected in my usage" because I've included it's application to persons from the start.

As for "surreptitiously widening the usage..." and all that rubbish in your last paragraph I'd say you're inventing motives that really aren't there and contradicting yourself in the process. You've already accepted that "people call something "gay" meaning uncool/laughable with no awareness or recognition of the original negative connotation. I even have gay friends who call uncool things gay." Now you're saying that use of the word "has become derogatory". That was quick - it usually takes more than a few days for meanings to be completely turned upside down.

km

Mind reading? Not really... people can't mean what they don't know but can be taken to know common and contemporary meanings.

km

That's not what he's saying but what I'm saying.... he's saying it's not appied to people in a non-pejorative sense - and of that he couldn't be more wrong.


Difficult? All people are doing is using words to reflect what's in their mind - how difficult can that be? Someone who's off drugs, off crime, being honest, had corrective surgery for kyphosis or is just plain heterosexual could declare he's 'straight' and kill five birds with just one word.

km