It's "the worsT", not "the worse"

Presumably this truncation arises from people writing what they hear - most people don’t really say ‘supposed to’ as two distinct words, the ‘d’ merges/disappears into the ‘t’. Which is fair enough, I suppose, if English isn’t the writer’s first language but I doubt that’s usually the case.

"I feel real loose like a long-necked goose...' Jerry Lee Lewis, Chantilly Lace.

I suppose loose an arrow is from let loose an arrow?

Similarly, there is 'you are suppose to'. Dropping d and ed from words seems to be part of a wider trend for truncating words. Another recent one is dropping the n as in 'I have spoke'. I suspect that has spread from Instagram.

One that annoys me to an irrational degree is the use of 'definition' instead of 'epitome', 'exemplar' or 'paragon'. E.g. 'FudgeFudy is the definition of a tedious pedant' - no, because that means nobody else could be a tedious pedant other than me, and this thread clearly demonstrates that that's incorrect.

I have indeed used an offensive word to make my point.

You are defending the use of an offensive word not even to make a point. In fact, you are denying that it is offensive purely because you say it is not.

Are you really so ignorant that you believe only "one person in the 90s" has ever been bothered by this word?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly

Do you really not understand how, because using it can be deliberately racially provocative, listeners can never be confident that it's not being used in that way? Are you really placing your desire to use this, yes, archaic word above the racial discomfort of a listener?

It doesn't do to accuse others of snobbery when you post with that assumption of superiority, telling a poster you would be embarrassed by her post when there is no reason to be. It was an interesting illustration of a point. The word is not archaic. Just because it's not familiar to you, doesn't mean it isn't widely known and used.

Of course. Believing that standards of English in official life should be high doesn’t mean condemning or sneering at people who for one reason or another haven’t acquired a high level of skill in literacy. I would never do that - and I’d never point it out to them or criticise their use of English. But I do feel for people who’ve been left at a disadvantage in this area, and telling children it doesn’t matter doesn’t help.

As a country we’ve got to do better to foster language skills and in public life standards should be high. That’s all I’m saying.

But that is the only way the expression makes sense.

Only the one person, way back in the 90s. The reaction elsewhere was - can they be serious?! It became apparent that the person was ignorant of the meaning of the word and just had a knee-jerk reaction. I think they later apologised or at least, backed down.

The theme of this news item at the time was - OMG, how can anyone be so daft?

But fighting pps on here have taken up the cause and claim to agree it’s offensive.🫤

I fundamentally disagree. I don’t think we should make concessions to people who’ve simply made a dumb mistake. They need to educate themselves, not accuse others.

Most of this is primary school level English.

If you think back to primary school, you'll remember that a good proportion of your classmates would have struggled with this.

Those classmates are adults now and we should show them grace.

Is anyone actually offended by the word niggardly once they know what it means though? Or are they offended because they wrongly assume it is related to the racial slur. Surely once you understand that the two words are not linguistically related there is nothing to be offended about. It's not remotely like the other examples you gave. Nor is it like your use of the c word which you did intend to be an insult.

It is funny the way people who lecture us on what’s offensive use words which are MEANT to be highly offensive to make a point.

I’ve always wondered why the female genitalia are used to denote a vile person.

Can anyone explain - and that’s a genuine question - I don’t get the logic.

I am happy to stop using the c word, as it offends you.

I would point out, however, that you have no authority over what's actually offensive. Many people are actually offended by niggardly, even if you think they shouldn't be.

It is irrelevant whether you think niggardly shouldn't have those connotations. The fact is, it does and you have experienced that it does. You might think it's a good word. Others think it's a bad word. Words become loaded over time, as you say.

But I, genuinely, find your casual use of the word "cunt" horrendously unacceptable, vile and provocative. It is actually offensive to a huge number of people, rather than sounding like an offensive word. So stop using it.

Words become loaded over time and that’s why euphemisms are constantly being updated - from cripple to handicapped to disabled to differently able etc.

I agree that your examples EXCEPT for niggardly. It’s not analogous to spastic or retard, which I accept have become ignorant insults. Niggardly is a good word and shouldn’t be given connotations it doesn’t have.

I once had a woman claiming she was shocked at “Regina” because it sounded like vagina. If you bend to the influence of ignorant people- you’re on the downward path.

Let’s have (in the UK at least) kerb, as in the edge of the road, not curb!!!

And someone reins in their behaviour.

@CoffeeCantata Words need to be used with context and care.

"Retard" and "spastic" are both legitimate English words that you would be a cunt to use in polite society how ever much you insisted you were linguistically right to use them.

"Niggardly" is the same. Knowing what you do about it, you would be provocative and confrontational to continue to use it.

"Adolf" is a good, old-fashioned German name meaning noble wolf. Insisting on calling a child Adolf because it has no further meaning than that would be disingenuous.

I hate the dumbing down and the reliance on tired cliche.

You know that when there’s been a tragedy the police spokesperson will say that the victims are “in their thoughts and prayers”. There’s no need for officials to say this - it’s become meaningless from repetition.

When something awful happens I always dread this comment - it’s now totally banal and formulaic.

Pedants know the difference already. It's correct to place this in a high traffic category!

This is the most annoying mistake that people make and it is everywhere now.
It's definitely worse than saying worse when people actually mean worst!

So do I- for 2 reasons:

It’s lazy and takes away aspirations - anything will do. And once to say that about one area of life, it can transfer to others.

And I’m pretty certain the posh schools don’t tell their students that. Do they heck! It’s the children already linguistically deprived who are given this patronising message.

That was the whole point. No-one was offended by it except one daft person on a committee.

It’s not a problem for most people, but hey - let’s skew the language because some people are silly.

What is your objection to “niggardly”?

If it’s what I think it might be (and I’m sorry if I’m misjudging), then how do you feel about “pachyderm “?

If you want to censor one, you’d have to censor that too.