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

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

Do you feel the same way about "niggle" or "snigger"? It's interesting that only the word niggardly has caused controversy. I can't find examples of it being used in a deliberately racially provocative way, just speculation that it might be. (That's not to say it hasn't happened, of course.) The song referenced in your link would have been just as offensive had another word been used. All the complaints stem from misunderstandings of the origin and meaning of the word.

Niggardly is not a word I use. I don't recall hearing it recently either. I wouldn't miss it if it no longer existed. But I do wonder where we draw the line if we start finding offence in words simply because they sound like actually offensive words.

You were saying about being offensive.

"First come, first serve" seems to be on the increase everywhere atm. It is driving me slowly nuts.

I agree with this. As in so many things, it’s the old thin end of the wedge scenario. And it’s so subjective. It’s a dangerous road to go down.

The problem, if it is a problem, is merely coincidental and to some extent in the ear of the individual listener.

I saw ‘high rate’ instead of irate on our local Facebook group recently, as in ‘I apologise for being high rate earlier’. Made me chuckle.

Did you find it offensive before this thread? Or have you just decided, unilaterally, that “it’s offensive to many people “? Are you sure? Evidence?

I’m going to hold out here because I think your attitude is pernicious and frankly, silly. It’s the sort of point you’d expect a child to make. And you’d then explain things to them so that they know the word has no connection with a racist slur.

As I said upthread - how offensive do you go find “pachyderm”? It’s that level of ridiculous.

I’ve thought of a phrase which really annoys me. It’s not exactly an error - more trendy jargon. Academics have this phrase “speaks to”, when surely it should be “speaks of “. Eg “This book speaks to the colonial experience “ or “This painting speaks to the role of women in the war”.

It’s weird but it’s become so widespread and to me it’s like nails down a blackboard. Grrrr. It was all over a discussion on R4 the other evening.

I’ve just seen ‘disinterested’ on another thread, when the poster clearly meant ‘uninterested’. 🙁

Speakers of other languages often do this, because are taught that 'May I? is correct and polite. Then they extend it.

I did a teaching course eons ago and was told that if a word is misused often enough, it becomes correct, and we were asked if we would mark down a student who used 'refute' when they meant 'deny'. Hands went up, including mine, and we were told that we shouldn't do this; we should just allow it.

It is familiar to me, despite not being widely used, but it’s not familiar to a lot of people, which is the point I’ve repeatedly made. I’m a professional editor and it has almost completely vanished from modern use.

Someone else has capably pointed out that niggardly has an increasingly long history of being taken the wrong way, due to - as you recognise yourself - mistaken association with the word n***.

It doesn’t really matter how or why the association arose, it exists now. A lot of my work involves managing tone in brand writing for businesses, something AI is fairly poor at doing at this stage.

There are a lot of words and phrases in reasonably common use (unlike niggardly!) that professionals now avoid in public-facing writing due to historic associations now giving them a taint of racism, sexism or ableism. This is just one of them. I’m not sure why you’re so married to it.

English has over a million words; the language is not going to be impoverished if we move on from a small number of them.

[Post edited by MNHQ to remove offensive term]

My post got blocked, presumably because I used the word that niggardly gets associated with.

😭😭😭

Could be. It seems to be part of a wider trend of laziness in speech and language, which also seems to go hand in hand with increasing informality.
There is less attention to clear and precise pronunciation, including among broadcasters. The lazy speech of the Sky News man who said 'twenny' instead of twenty is an example. People, including on the BBC, pronounced Brexit as Bregsit, which is more of the lazy mode. It's also American, like twenny. When Theresa May said Brexit. it stood out as unusual.

David Cameron and George Osborne saying 'gunna' instead of 'going to' surprised me. This was Cameron, educated at Eton and Oxford who became known as 'Call me Dave' when he tried to shake off the perception, or indeed reality of being posh.

The royals haven't escaped the change in language either. Prince William told us it was the first time 'her and I' had done something together. 'Her' for 'she' seems almost universal among Americans online. The King would never be so sloppy, being of a generation more attuned to grammar and pronunciation.

As well as lazy pronunciation, informal language has crept into news bulletins. They use slangy expressions such as 'price gouging' and 'run off' and jargon such as 'uptick'. A particularly jarring broadcast instance was when Emma Barnett on Radio 4 told us that a government minister had a 'side hustle', meaning she had an additional ministerial role.

Wouldn’t surprise me if ‘t’ in the middle and end of words eventually disappears altogether in words such as ‘little’ or ‘light’.
The one which drives me to distraction at the moment is ‘addicting’ eg ‘chocolate is so addicting’.

Someone recently suggested it means 'attests to'. I hadn't thought of that. It seemed right at the time. Now I'm not sure it is. Does it mean 'addresses' or is more an affirmation of something?

Ah - that’s interesting. In other words, it means “ it witnesses”. But I still think “speaks of” would make more sense. “speaks to” is just nonsensical and strikes me as merely a piece of jargon which has been thoughtlessly adopted.

Gifting instead of giving….(chews carpet).

If you’re an ordinary citizen, surely you just give a present and if you’re super-rich or a corporate ion, you donate money etc.

No need for any gifting!