I posted a comment noting that some words can no longer be used because they resemble offensive words, even though they are etymologically unrelated.
I am ironically amused to note that the comment appears to have offended somebody or something sufficiently to make it disappear, even though it did not contain any actual offensive words.
...Can no longer be used without fumbling into people that assume the rest intends to speak demotic, "Fixed That For You".
> some words can no longer be used because they resemble offensive words
I find it very interesting on a specific historic case that the original group, of difficult pronunciation for Europeans, in the Gulf of Guinea area, "n·gr", meaning "big river", naming the Niger river and nearby countries, happened to be so close to the Latin for "black" - which is already in a way offensive, with its potential as some "reduction to appearance". (Of course, the Republic of the Niger and the Federal Republic of Nigeria correctly just shrug the coincidence off.)
Sadly I think those words have died, as victims of semantic pollution, through no fault of their own. Even though no dictionary will attest to an offensive meaning, they share enough phonemic material with malwords to trigger an immune response, which is not something you generally want to do to your readers.
> trigger an immune response, which is not something you generally want to do to your readers
In general, you expect readers not live «immune response[s]». It is called "sensation", and you either expect readers to be mature and having learnt to manage it as much as they learnt all other physiological and emotional and intellectual control, or if not mature you want to expose them to the world of serious adulthood for their awareness [rephrased: you do not hide adult behaviour: example must not be missed] - in which "sensation" has no part, replaced by distance, reflection and cool and objective consideration.
It is very odd to consider readers as "prone to sensation" (and that they could be legitimately so).
Depending on what you're writing, sensation might well be the entire purpose of the writing. So words that trigger the wrong sensation should absolutely be avoided, and not used to test the reader's maturity or anything like that.
However, these sensations are extremely cultural. As a non-American, it's funny to see Americans trying to impose their cultural sensitivities on other countries and cultures. Like criticising crayon brands for using the word "negro" on their black crayons. Or criticising people for using an online name that vaguely looks like a forbidden American word.
I also remember from many years ago an American interviewer trying to interview a black British athlete what it was like for him as an "African American". He corrected her that he's British, and she corrected to "African American Brit".
It's absolutely great that Americans are trying to rid themselves of racist slurs, but combined with American cultural imperialism it can lead to weird situations that can ironically come across as quite racist again, because other cultures refuse to play by the new (entirely justified) American sensitivity rules, because in those other cultures the words lack the racist connotation that they have in the US.
> I also remember from many years ago an American interviewer trying to interview a black British athlete what it was like for him as an "African American". He corrected her that he's British, and she corrected to "African American Brit".
Ah this is an old internet rumour. Either a) no footage of it survived to be on the internet or b) it was always a rumour.
Here's some discussions respectively from 2015 (trying to find it) and 2000 (stating a slightly different version of it):
It probably stems from before Youtube. Not everything on TV ends up on Youtube.
I've been googling this a bit, and I found a lot of people remembering seeing it on TV (but that's not conclusive either, because we can create fake memories about this sort of thing), but no link to a video. Best we can probably hope for is a confirmation or denial from Kriss Akabusi himself, but then someone has to ask him.
> Depending on what you're writing, sensation might well be the entire purpose of the writing
That would be immoral... Pornography is supposed to be an exception, a consensual experiment - not the standard of communication, on the opposite. When you deliberately try to make the reader lose control (e.g. for manipulation, or paternalistic trickery), that IS immoral.
> So words that trigger the wrong sensation
In whom? What makes "sensation" legitimate? How can you assume a reader will get that "sensation" - which, also, is not supposed to have in the first place? You say it yourself: «...trying to impose their cultural sensitivities on other countries and cultures...». There seems to be an attempt to create a "standard demotic" - but it remains demotic, and with extremely weak foundations without grounds for universality.
> not used to test the reader's maturity
No no no no no no no no - that was never meant (why should one do that? That is perverse, and something akin was the whole point). What was expressed is that you do not hide adulthood to children - otherwise, they will remain children.
Edit:
and by the way,
> However, these sensations are extremely cultural
Also the use of sensational language is "cultural", localized in some areas: you can see that it is found more frequently in some territories. It remains objectively immoral to attempt speaking to the visceral instead of the intellect. It is like tapping one's arm to steal from him. You communicate to provide further awareness, not to reduce it; to provide further abilities, not to lower them. If you did the latter, you'd be a criminal.
No. Again, no. "Sensation" is when people are open to be hit as if physiologically from what something suggests them (hence, 'suggestion') - it is lack of control. It is when a court accused Lenny Bruce of pornology when he used swearwords in his stand-up comedy performances - the accused him of eliciting arousal. You are not supposed to feel deeply overwhelming perturbances in front of swearwords: that is not how it works in adults - and if did, it would signal a problem. That is "sensation" (more common today in 'sensationalism'). It is when the Camelot knights faint in front of the "Knights who say 'Ni'".
Poetry and literature use language with mastery for the elevation of people who, since they have keys to appreciate it, must be expert enough to manage it - which means, all which is transmitted is mediated, digested. The ball is caught and managed, not taken in the face with strong notification from the nose.
Sensation is typical e.g. of the worse """political""" (multiply the bunny quotes there) speech and is allowed by those who want to "feel" instead of "consider". This attitude for the consensual receiver could be at most a "private time" activity which is like approaching «pornography[, ]supposed to be an exception, a consensual experiment - not the standard of communication, on the opposite». On the side of the proposer, those who attempt inducing sensation, it is immoral: it is degrading and damaging. Those who encourage the listener to rely on panic (lower, uncontrolled) responses instead of reflection, are criminals.
Also, about your misreading of my: «or if not mature you want to expose them to the world of serious adulthood for their awareness», to which I then added «[rephrased: you do not hide adult behaviour: example must not be missed]», nearby a member mentioned the idea of "avoiding the term 'homonym' ['homophone', 'homologue' etc.] just to be sure": because somebody may faint?! The rest should resort to crippled language?!?! You use 'homonym' and 'homophone' and 'homologue' because that is the language, the correct one, and all correct use is a model: you do not hide that to the immature (which would make them remain so), there is nothing like «test[ing] the reader's maturity», and to stop using 'homonym' because somebody may faint would be one apex of the absurd (and a dictatorship of the fools).
Seems to be un-deaded now, praise the mods! And on closer inspection there was one naughty word in there, although technically it's a homonym that happens to have the same spelling. (And "homonym" itself is probably best avoided.)
for comments that are 'killed' by user flags, other users can 'vouch' for the comment and I think if enough vouch flags are submitted, the comment re appear.
I am ironically amused to note that the comment appears to have offended somebody or something sufficiently to make it disappear, even though it did not contain any actual offensive words.