Misogyny is the noun for the attitude of being a "Woman Hater" that state of substance in a personalities spirit where motives, thoughts, words and actions or deeds express a hatred or a contempt for the words and actions of women.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
Philogyny is the noun for the attitude of being a "Woman Lover" that state of substance in a personalities spirit where motives, thoughts, words and actions or deeds express a love or a kindness for the words and actions of women.
http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2010/07/19.html
Misandry is the noun for the attitude of being a "Man Hater" that state of substance in a personalities spirit where motives, thoughts, words and actions or deeds express a hatred or a contempt for the words and actions of men.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry
Philandry is the noun for the attitude of being a "Man Lover" that state of substance in a personalities spirit where motives, thoughts, words and actions or deeds express a love or a kindness for the words and actions of men.http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/philandry
And where shall the twain be marked that the good ship mankind not ground itself on the shoals of the sands of time as they flow through these hourglass, horology's of events you antrocynistics or philocynistics? What of agape? Good God another Greek word! For the love of principals. Yes condemned by our words. Ever heard of the word philanderer? Remember its meaning so mean? Lover of literary works is one definition. Womanizer is another. Excuse me IF I sound confused here.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philanderer
The way words change there meaning over time via the way called by Henry Fowler in his tome "Modern English Usage" called Popularized Technicalities is the subject heading of the this pages rage at the dying of the light the candle snuffed out and all left in the dark.
And where then is the picture he took? Or perhaps a better question is, where did he hide that time machine? The person who made this piece of art is as guilty as Hitler was in the use of propaganda to achieve political ends. Just a fabrication, a synthesis of ideologies to promote the causes of anti- then- insert name of whatever name for any personality in existence -isms and party partners the -ists. Freeways smooth fast tracks for both Volkswagen's to get to work on time and PANZER'S to get to war on time. Which one of you is not involved with that? n-joy = peat<8<(1)>
http://www.russinoff.com/david/usage/editors.html Concluding Comments on an article that is a must read for liguists semiologists and especially lexiographers. The problem is slipshod extention and popularised technicalities.
One interesting entry introduced in the second edition is a discussion of gambit, a term of chess that worked its way into popular usage over the first half of the twentieth century. Gowers's observation is that the word should be reserved for reference to "the first move, especially with an implication of cunning, in any contest or negotiation", and that any broader use is an example of "that SLIPSHOD EXTENSION that almost always goes with POPULARIZED TECHNICALITIES." The Webster's New International sequence is helpful in tracking this development. The first edition (1909) gives only the technical definition, "A chess opening in which the first player gives up a pawn or a piece, or several successively, for the sake of an advantage in position". The second (1934) adds another: "Hence, a concession to invite discussion." Not until the third (1961) do we find evidence of the deprecated usage: "a calculated move, maneuver, or device". * Clearly, Fowler was not positioned to comment on the extension, but if he had been, he surely would have objected to Gowers's definition as a slipshod extension in its own right, and insisted that the term be reserved to describe a concession offered at the opening of a negotiation with the expectation of recoupment.
"
est
there be some concern that the foregoing commentary may be unduly harsh, it must
be understood that the act of revising the considered words of a deceased author
in such a way that his intent is knowingly misrepresented is an offense that
cannot go unpunished.
While Margaret Nicholson may be acquitted of this particular crime, the same
is not true of Ernest Gowers, whose name was omitted from the title of this saga
mainly in the interest of preserving the cadence
of that of Ron Hansen's
historical novel. Although he respected and conformed to Fowler's general
approach, Gowers also significantly altered the substance of his conclusions,
with such subtlety and deftness that the unsuspecting reader is readily
deceived.
Of course, Robert Burchfield, who combined arrogance with incompetence, was
the worst of the lot. It is worth noting, however, that if he had simply chosen
a different title, he would be answering only to the reduced charges of
incidental plagiarism and having written a wretched book. But then, that book
would not have sold nearly as well.
Oxford University Press, which retains the copyright to MEU, must hold
some responsibility for—if not interest in—its preservation. Although this
premise has not generally been born out by Oxford's practice, its latest
offering is a welcome deviation: a photographic reproduction of the original,
"edited" by David Crystal. An academic linguist known for promoting non-standard
varieties of English, Crystal is an unlikely candidate for this assignment, but
his contribution—a topic for another discussion—is felicitously confined to a
separate introduction.
A final word in defense of our own title is in order, in consideration of a
relevant observation offered by Fowler himself:
coward(ly). The identification of coward & bully has gone so far in the popular consciousness that persons & acts in which no trace of fear is to be found are often called coward(ly) merely because advantage has been taken of superior strength or position; such action may be unchivalrous, unsportsmanlike, mean, tyrannical, & many other bad things, but not cowardly; cf. the similar misuse of DASTARDLY.Our use of the word may be subject to this censure under the view that Burchfield and his kind have merely taken advantage of having out-lived their unwitting coauthors. But the act of violating the integrity of a defenseless author and using his name to market the result for personal financial gain, while dodging the liability of having one's work judged on its own merit, is no less cowardly than that of the outlaw Robert Ford, who shot his victim in the back of the head and made a living posing for photographs as "the man who shot Jesse James"."
n-joy = peat<8<(1)>
No comments:
Post a Comment