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

I’m against the idea of ditching basic skills to put our faith in technology to this degree.

OK, it’s fine if you know how to use language to start with, but it’s analogous to the idea that it’s OK to use a calculator in maths as long as you understand the principles behind the operations. It’s no substitute for understanding how maths works.

I could give lots of egs about this kind of thing…but I’ll try to restrain myself. Many younger people find analogue clocks difficult - and I suppose they are - but with the analogue clock face you get a graphic illustration of the passage of time as well as a way of understanding how hors, minutes and seconds relate to each other. Digital clocks are great for many purposes but the information is displayed in a much more abstract way. I think analogue clocks are best if you’re in an exam and need to see how much time you have left at a glance.

Having lived on a farm where there were geese, I can tell you that they are not to be trusted and will be loose wherever they see an opportunity.

And of course one can also loose an arrow and then, having missed, lose it. Field archery is a bugger for that sort of thing.

Pure misdirected snobbery on your part.

Perfectly normal pronunciation of the word across huge swathes of the UK population.

Nounification is a common linguistic feature. You are just behind the curve. An invite is a modern term for an invitation.

I agree in the sense that I have a theory that English people (not the Celtic nations) are the only ones in the world who might be uncertain as to how placenames and other words are pronounced, because there aren’t strict, universal rules as there are in other languages. Cholmondeley (Chumley), Wymondham (Windam), Leicester etc.

But that’s what I enjoy about it - it’s a record of our history and all the contributions by invaders.

I haven’t got a utilitarian attitude to language - I admit to a romantic one. I’d hate to have rationalised spelling as in the US.

It's an offensive word to many people because it is sonically close to the very worst kind of racist slur.

What kind of person continues to use a word that offends many people deeply because they "know better"? I'll tell you what sort of person. A cunt.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

@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.

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

And someone reins in their behaviour.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

But that is the only way the expression makes sense.

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.

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.