Webster's dictionary

French gai meant cheerful, light-hearted and vibrant. It was adopted by english speakers as gay and meant the same. However, during the 1930s it began to be used to mean homosexual in English and in the 1960s was adopted by homosexual men as the preferred term to be called. This meaning was then adopted back by the french as was the updated spelling of gay. In french gai can still mean cheerful and light-hearted, but like it's english counterpart, evokes a sense of double entrende when used as such.

 

The concept of synonyms is one of connotation, or else they would be superflous; so 'happy', 'joyful', 'gay', 'cheery', &c., all denote the same concept; but not all exactly in the same way (if anybody speaks a language that is lacking in different ways to describe the degrees, &c., of any one concept, they'll understand the significance of this). This is more obvious with synonyms for its antonym (like the difference between 'despair' and 'sadness'). So, 'gay' meant what 'happy' meant because of what 'gay' meant, or else they would've been the same word. On a certain online dictionary, the French word 'gai' is defined as 'cheerful, blithe, gay, gleeful, breezy, merry'; notice that you could continue adding other adjectives to describe what it means in terms of other words, yet it's impossible to say exactly what it means succinctly, because it simply means 'gai' ('gai' is 'gai') (which is where terms like 'the Gay Nineties' come from, rather than the 'Happy Nineties' or the 'Carefree Nineties'). In a separate dictionary, the word is defined as 'light-hearted and carefree' and 'brightly coloured; showy'; a definition which is now dated. Wikipedia (while it may not be completely reliable for facts) gives a good argument that attempts to trace the evolution of the term:

gai → gay ('joyful', 'carefree', 'bright and showy') → partial to pleasures and dissipations in the above sense of the word ('carefree' → 'uninhibited') → homosexual (from a disregard for conventional or respectable sexual mores [which could have at least two senses: one in which there was a certain stigma attached to it {which would be slightly synthetic, I think, considering the word}, and one from the original use of the word which homosexuals could apply to themselves]).

However, if the concept of sexual norms was to be obliterated, the term, in that sense, would become meaningless (as I think is pointed out by the head of something-or-other, mentioned in the Wiki article), and the term could only be rightly applied to any homosexual who displayed gay tendencies in the sense of the word itself (as it could be to any other person), though the term's ability to imply something of the sort is unaffected. We can therefore, theoretically, still apply the term 'gay' to joyfulness, carefreeness, &c., though this would be unpragmatic for the simple reason that it's possible.

Alternatively, I would simply point to the fact that people began to call homosexuals by that name when it was a word with meaning already; so it would make no sense to have two indistinguishable words with unrelated meanings in a language.

 

I've read wayne's post twice, and I still have no idea how he thinks the word "gay" came to have its meaning changed.

 

Are you joking? Did you seriously miss the point that badly? The point of the whole thing was that it didn't have its meaning changed! Convention dictates how the word will be understood, but that doesn't change what the word actually means! Each word is a description of that which it denotes! Just like music, or art, or maths! The concept of that which it describes is contained within the description. If one thing can be readily substituted for another, then that thing can't have meaning. If it did, language would always mean anything and everything and, therefore, nothing: we could, by your principle, give entire sentences that don't address or reference something, but which, nevertheless, is taken to tell us something about it. 'Homo' and 'sexual' each mean separate things, which, when combined, describe what a homosexual is. It is not mere convention that the minor third sounds sad, or the augmented fourth sounds repugnant, or that the seventh degree of a scale sounds as if it must resolve to the tonic; it's the way it is! You could adopt a different convention, and these things are still true.

 

I'm saying that 'gay' always had the capacity to mean 'homosexual', just as you can rearrange an equation and it's still 'the same' because it always had the capacity to represent the information in that way. You could say that a word 'changes its meaning' when it's used differently; but there's always an underlying principle of what the word actually means that allows the contextual interpretation of the word, which doesn't change: the meaning of the word.

In this case, for example, I would argue that if something can be called both 'new' and 'original', the concept of 'newness' was always presupposed in the application of the word original with regard to that which it's describing. 'Original' can mean a host of different things (which all relate to the word itself), and if we ever came to use the word 'innovative' (or something) for 'original', it would be used in the sense where innovation and origin coincide; thus, 'gay' could always mean 'homosexual'; but 'homosexual' could not always mean 'gay'.

Edit:

Yes, that's exactly it; suitably, in a sense where 'association' is contained within the concept of 'contained within'!

 

Haha, you're hilarious. Okay well in that case I can put your mind to rest. Don't worry - homogenous still "means" homogenous, but convention now dictates that it is "understood" as homogeneous.

 

Which is incorrect. Actually, it's nonsense, if what you're saying is that the meaning of the word 'homogenous' that is understood means that its meaning is not its meaning, but another meaning, viz. 'homogeneous', which is a logical contradiction; and if you're saying that it is understood as meaning to mean 'homogeneous', while it actually has a different meaning, that's called a mistake, and to say that a mistake is correct insofar as it is a mistake is, also, a logical contradiction, no matter how widespread it becomes.

 

No. There is no connection between an emotional state and a sexual orientation. Straight people can be happy, and homosexuals can be miserable, or vice-versa. You're using a post-hoc rationalization to try to explain the fact that the word took on a previously unknown and unrelated meaning. If you went back 200 years and suggested to someone that they could use 'gay' to refer to a homosexual man, they wouldn't have replied "Ah yes, now you mention it, the word does have the capacity to mean that" - they would just have looked at you as if you were crazy.

All right, let me put it in a way you'll understand. The word 'homogenous' always had the capacity to mean 'homogeneous'. Better?

 

In all honesty, that is one of the most profound cases of misunderstanding that I have ever encountered. If A is an adjective, and N is a noun which can be described by the adjective, then A ⊆ N. If A describes a case of mirthful, carefree flippancy in general, and N describes sexual orientation, then it is a property of that sexual orientation that is mirthfully, carefreely flippant, in this case, of convention (why is not the issue here).

Before you go rushing to your keyboard to respond to another gross misapprehension, simply observe the fact that the term didn't just explode from nowhere with its meaning intact; look it up and read how it evolved into the current usage. Even if you don't see sufficient reason for its being understood as it is, notice that it was simply a mistake in the process which I said all along is central to language; so it's their mistake; not mine. Since I know it didn't appear from nowhere, I don't need to respond to that; you can see the attempted derivation yourself. And if appears to you that their reasoning is faulty, it means 'gay' doesn't mean 'homosexual'; if you contest this, try to get a geometrical theorem accepted based on a mistake.

If 'homogenous' became equated with 'homogeneous' because of a mistake, and you think this demonstrates that one had the capacity to become the other while still retaining its meaning, then you've shown that the only way for this to be true is if somebody said 'homogenous' instead of 'homogeneous' and somebody else metalinguistically assumed that he meant 'homogeneous'; that says nothing about the meaning of 'homogenous'.

 

"Horse" is more exactly pronounced, "Hross" but the "hr..." doesn't fit the rhythm of modern english, so we swapped the O and the R. A terrible mistake, but one we all agreed on centuries ago. Now the dictionary agrees too.

Like I said, if you want a language where the pronunication, spelling and syntax are all completely polished, internally consistent and logical, study Sanskrit.

Even the letters are little pictograms of the shape of the mouth and tongue when pronouncing them, and the arranged Devanagiri (alphabet) forms a map of the cross section of the human mouth and throat, showing where each sound is made.

The spelling is always exactly phonetic, even when some changes occur as words are blended together, the spelling changes to reflect it. Also, there is an enormous and concise vocabulary, including words for subatomic particles, which have been set in cannon for millennia.

Not for nothing is it called Sanskrit: Sam + Krt = Well-Made = "finished product".

 

That is one of the coolest things I've ever heard!

 

Exqueeze me? I've been the one saying that this kind of thing is what drives the evolution of language. You've been saying things like this:

So, on the one had you think it is "blind idiocy" and on the other hand you think it is "central to language". Nice one.

To be honest I have lost track of what we're arguing about now. You originally wanted to know why a dictionary listed 'homogeneous' and 'homogenous' as synonyms. I said it's because that's the way people use the words and it's the job of a dictionary to describe the way people use words.

As far as I can see, your argument since then amounted to "But it's a mistake."

And mine was "That's how language works, so tough."

Now it turns out you think that mistakes are central to language. So we agree. Hooray.

Except that, over time, as more and more people do it, the meaning of 'homogenous' will come to be assumed to be that of 'homogeneous' by everyone who uses the word and at that point its meaning will effectively have been changed. and the old meaning will only be recorded as a historical footnote in the dictionary.

 

Are you stupid? Because that would explain a lot. What I said was that if it came to be that way by mistake, it was a mistake in the association process that I said was fundamental in the evolution of language; I, in no way, condoned making the mistake and then claiming its validity.

This is the same as above, and is hilariously apropos seeing as it uses the term 'blind idiocy', as you either had trouble reading the post, are stupid, or both.

Nope; same again.

Because it's a mistake. It's incorrect.

 

No, but you're evidently very bad at explaining your points.

That's how language works, so tough.

 

Yet DE realized from reading them what I was talking about. Don't blame me if you simply can't understand what's right in front of you.

If you were truly not stupid, you'd be able to recognize that you have already admitted the contrary.

 

It took him several goes - he had to go back and edit his post afterwards. Hardly an illustration of your clear writing.

This is actually hilarious, because this whole argument is about the common understanding of words, and yet you seem to be incapable of expressing your thoughts in simple terms, preferring instead to use set theory and obscure philosophical arguments. Then you complain when people don't understand you. Newsflash: language is about mutual understanding. If you are constructing massive run-on sentences that people don't understand, perhaps it's your fault.

If you were truly good at explaining things, you would explain this instead of turning it into an unfounded ad hominem attack.

To get back to the point - your argument seems to boil down to this:

- Change of meaning through association of similar meaning = central to language
- Change of meaning through association of similar pronounciation = a mistake

To me, this seems like an arbitrary distinction - either words are allowed to change their meaning, or they aren't. The reason shouldn't matter.

 

I'd say Smuel has a point there.

When people are notoriously not understanding you, instead of cursing their uncomprehensiveness, it's a good idea to ponder whether or not you as the speaker are making your points clear enough.

My main impression from this thread is that often you state something quite simple and easily understandable, Wayne, but do so in an unnecessarily lengthy, complicated and philosophical manner, which results in people wrongly interpreting your words. You waste your time on writing it, others waste their time on trying to understand it, everyone is pissed and nothing is accomplished.

I understand that using all those sophisticated words and Latin terms help you express your thought more accurately, but what's the point when rather than helping, they stand in the way of people understanding you?

Another thing, that Constipation fellow has a point as well. The enter key is your friend. Torturing fellow board members with tiresome walls of text doesn't aid anyone.

 

Muro, attempting to inject logic into this thread is like putting a single drop of iodine into New York City's sewer system.

As a side note I totally agree with Smuelissimo, thus completely negating my comment above.

 

Rather than a thread redeemer, what I wrote was an attempt at friendly advice, something that would have an usefulness reaching beyond this one messy thread. I may very well end up being ignored or flamed, of course, but at least my sense of mission has been satisfied.