Retired General Charles Sweeney, the man who piloted the B-29 that dropped the second atomic bomb on Japan, just passed away at the age of 84. I was pleased to see something in his obituary that I hadn't seen elsewhere. It was noted that he was survived by "...three sons; seven daughters; a former wife; two brothers; one sister; and a companion, Muriel Murphy; and 24 grandchildren."
Has anyone ever seen a "companion" listed in an obituary before? I haven't and I'd like to think that this is a step in the right direction. It struck me as odd, at first, that they named the woman but then I figured that without prominently mentioning the obviously female name "Muriel," some readers might have incorrectly concluded that the good general had been gay.
It's probably also for the best that "Muriel" is generally accepted as being an older woman's name even though I, for one, wouldn't have minded reading about the general's surviving "...two brothers; one sister; and a masseuse and personal assistant, Tiffany Goodbody, aged 18."
I'm confused by using and twice in the sentence. Wouldn't it be more correct to say "...three sons; seven daughters; a former wife; two brothers; one sister; a companion, Muriel Murphy; and 24 grandchildren."
Of course, the order is all wrong, it almost seems like the grandchildren come from Muriel Murphy. It seems that the grandchildren should be before her name, possibly right after the "three sons; seven daughters". I don't read many obituaries, so perhaps this is something stylistically unique in them, but it seems a bit strange.
Yes, I agree, Sean. I found the 2 "ands" curious myself.
However, I must not read that many obituaries myself, as I don't know about the sequencing. It sounded fine to me. However, I did note that the sons and brothers came before the daughters and sister, which I didn't like at all.
Regarding the title of this thread, I note that the term, "gay" was used to connote homosexuality by CJ. DAMNIT, my dictionary STILL says it means "happy!" Call me a curmudgeon of the lowest caste if you will, but I refuse to give in to society's allowing the co-opting of that word to mean anything other than "happy," or "cheerful," or "merry..." Using the all-too-common implications of "gay," I would conclude that heterosexuals are sad, morose, melancholy, etc. Well, I'M GAY! And I like women!
DAMNIT, my dictionary STILL says it means "happy!" Call me a curmudgeon of the lowest caste if you will, but I refuse to give in to society's allowing the co-opting of that word to mean anything other than "happy," or "cheerful," or "merry..."
Funny how language changes. From Partridge: "Gay. (Of women) leading an immoral, or a harlot's, life: 1825, Westmacott (OED), In C. 20, coll., on verge of SE.--2. Slightly intoxicated; ob. C.19-20; Perhaps orig. a euphemism.--3. Impudent, impertinent, presumptious: US (--1899), anglicized in 1915 by PG Wodehouse, OED (Sup.)." Also, gay house == brothel; gay in the arse == (Of women) loose; to lead a gay life == to live immorally; the gay instrument == the male member; gaying it == sexual intercourse.
So, for me it's always been synonymous with whorish. I'll get over it though. Go figure.
[Edited typo.]This message has been edited. Last edited by: jheem,
Grow up all of you, for God's sake. Gay is a nice short, non-medical word meaning homosexual. There is no other. It is a word that reflects an improvement in society: from less tolerant to more tolerant.
Quote "...Gay is a nice short, non-medical word meaning homosexual. There is no other. It is a word that reflects an improvement in society: from less tolerant to more tolerant ..."
Actually, there are many (although some, I agree, have negative connotations). But I do not agree that to call a homosexual a homosexual shows any more (or any less) tolerance than calling him or her "gay".
I have no problem with the concept of homosexuality (although it is not my own choice) but I do have a problem with the hikacking of a word. The homosexual community did not need the word and I resent their stealing it.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Graham, I'll not grow up... "for God's sake," since I'm agnostic with athiestic leanings! Here in the US, "gay" was formerly used pejoratively, but was then adopted by homosexuals, thus co-opted, and is now THE commonly used word connoting homosexuality. However, it is more and more used as a gender-specific term, with "lesbian" tacked on to connote a homosexual female. So, just from the standpoint of print on a page, "homosexual" uses less space than "gay and lesbian."
I also object to the use of "straight" to connote heterosexuality. Such usage suggests that homosexuality is "crooked,"or "warped," does it not? I believe that sexual orientation is hard-wired in a person's brain, thus one's orientatin is not sinful or disgraceful whatever it is. My objection is simply against the slang usage of "gay" becoming the primary one. If I were Christian, would I sing, "Don we now our homosexual apparel, fa la la la la la la?" If I were Dylan Thomas, would I have written, "...eyes would burn like meteors and be homosexual?" No. "Gay" has a sense that its synonyms just don't convey, and losing it diminishes our language.
Jheem, my copy of Partridge's Origins states, "gay, gaiety. OF gai derives from Frankish gahi - CF OHG gahi, impetuous, sudden, sharp...perh akin to OHG wahi, good, beautiful..." From which of Partridge's works are you quoting?
A Dictionary of Slang and Unconvential English (in two volumes), Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961.
My point being that gay has had a "negative" slang meaning for over two hundred years. It should be the whores and pimps grumbling about the homsexuals "stealing" or "hijacking" their word. But it's all a load of rubbish, fit to be carted off. The "straight" community outnumbers the "gay" community easily. If you all used the word (as "god meant it to be used") how could it be hijacked? I say that the word was already suspect before Stonewall and used pejoratively, and nobody would've dreamed of using it in its "original" meaning. But thanks to all the latent hostility, folks can get off grumbling about words being hijacked. Sheesh. I know I won't convince any of the grumblers. So be it. Here's another great olden tyme word for you, fie! Don't look for tolerence. I've been on the chat at least twice, when one of the members has used a derogatory ethnic slur in a joking manner. Just so happens I fit the ethnic bill. I've pointed it out jokingly to the (same) person twice, but they've chosen to ignore it. So be it. People use words any way they want to, and it's usually hurtful. I'm sure teenaged boys snicker at something like "gay apparel" or The Gay Science, but neither the song or the book's title has been rewritten. Oh, and call me politically correct if you want to, and here's the standard disclaimer: I am not gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. Fie, again, and fie, thrice.
The word has an entirely different meaning if you are younger. When you dislike something, or think something is wrong, you could say "That's gay". For example, a high school conversation like "We were supposed to have the weekend to study, but the teacher moved it to friday", "Well that's gay", is quite common.
It has nothing to do with homosexuality, it is by no means a slur, it is just a word that came to have that meaning. Obviously some homosexuals get upset by this, but then I have a gay friend who uses "That's gay" quite often. People have said "You're gay, you can't say gay like that", to which he responds, "I'll say whatever I want". To me, this is definitive proof that the word has simply expanded to other meanings.
If there is anyone over the age of 25 using the word gay in this fashion, I would be surprised. This word has obviously had a lot of movement in the last decade, but I'd be surprised if any serious research has been done into it.
Quote "...Here's another great olden tyme word for you, fie! ..."
There are some wonderful words that have fallen from popularity, fie being just one. Maybe we should start a revival movement to promote the use of some of the more colouful ones.
Gadzooks and odds bodkins!
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Okay, Asa, you curmudgeon! As jheem has explained to me over and over, language evolves. I have had to "get over it" too.
Now, I do disagree with the evolution of "gay" to the meaning that Sean talks about. Yes, I have heard my kids use it that way too. While younger gay people may not consider it a slur, I can assure you that gay people my age do.
We've talked about this word before. Gay has been around a long time and has had many meanings and doubtless will acquire more in the future. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. Here are my comments from Oct.9 (2003?). Wikipedia also talks about gay.
After reading jheem's above comments, I must admit that my assertions are groundless. It doesn't mean that I don't still have my prejudices, but, since "gay" has changed meaning - at least in slang terms - several times, I'll just go crawl back under my mossy rock and shut up!
It doesn't mean that I don't still have my prejudices
The great thing about language is that folks use it as they will. As many have pointed out on this board, it's quite the rara avis the word that only has a single meaning.
I read an interesting article today where someone sees a difference between being "homosexual" and "gay." Apparently some people think of "homosexual" as just the sexual part, whereas "gay" also includes the sociopolitical aspects.
