Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

As I have said before, there simply is NO evidence I can present that you will ever concede shows the truth...

How often a word is used in print is not representative of how it is used in conversations. For example, in Cyprus there are several words of the Cypriot dialect that are very rarely used in print even though they are commonly used among people. And even though some of those words are used less as time passes they might appear more now in print because several authors are making a conscious effort to preserve the dialect. In the case you are discussing here, when a word becomes "politically incorrect" it is obvious that people will be more inclined to stop using such words in print because that is a record of them writing something "incorrect". But in conversations between friends which are "off the record" then people are much more likely to use "taboo" words. At the end of the day it is your word VS hers and there is no "evidence" you can provide ... unless there was a scientific survey for this specific issue using a large representative sample of the population.

[erolz66]

Once again, I didn't make any precise statement on WHEN it became taboo (that's ONE of your errors) but said it was still being used at certain times (this being done despite it being taboo).

What you said, once more, verbatim was

Sotos, I explained that certain terms/names are offensive at different points in history/context (for example, the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK and now it is taboo).

You were NOT saying the word is still used today in the UK despite it being taboo now and if you had of said that it would have made no sense at all in the context of the original discussion. You just have to put what you now claim you were saying back into the original discussion to see how absurd this claim is. For example

"Sotos, I explained that certain terms/names are offensive at different points in history/context (for example, the "N" word is taboo in the UK now and it is still used today)."

The absurdity of you NOW trying to claim you did not make out that the transition of the word's usage in the UK from 'routine' to 'taboo' occurred in the UK from 1994 onwards just once more shows the very behaviour I seek to highlight.

Also transitions to taboo usually occur over many decades and not one specific time point. In-between, words continue to be used and until they are phased out completely. Your graph proves this!

The argument was never about are words that are taboo used at all after the point at which they became taboo. The argument has always been about your claim that in the UK the word went from 'routine' to 'taboo' in the period 1994 and later. Your attempts to try and make out the argument is about if a word that is now taboo is still used or not is just yet another example of how you will wilfully murder the truth to serve your propaganda needs.

Yes words transition over time. The time that this transition occurred in the UK is clear from all the evidence I have provided, the Wikipedia article and the graphs I produced using google ngram data. This evidence is so clear and so consistent that you now have to resort to claiming that you never said the transition occurred from 1994 onwards and that you were just saying the word was still used today despite it having transitioned earlier and that the specific dates you mentioned were arbitrary and indicative of nothing in terms of when the transition occurred. The absurdity of you trying to do this just shows exactly what I seek to highlight, you total contempt for actual truth in the face of your propaganda needs.

What DOES the graph show GiG ? (and for that matter what does the Wikipedia article say about when the transition occurred in the UK) ? What was the relevance of the dates you used in your original statement , if not you claiming this was the period in which usage of the word went from routine to taboo ?

Your pathetic attempt at over-analyzing that graph was like watching someone trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Correlation is not causation. And the word (as your graph also showed) CONTINUED to be USED in print (and so, from what I know of speech and conversation such taboo words are used more frequently than in academic or news or fiction writing.)

You first say

Sotos, I explained that certain terms/names are offensive at different points in history/context (for example, the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK and now it is taboo).

and now claim

I didn't make any precise statement on WHEN it became taboo (that's ONE of your errors) but said it was still being used at certain times (this being done despite it being taboo).

and then claim I am the one engaged in "trying to fit a square peg into a round hole" ?.

I hope it will eventually dawn on you as to why you are simply trolling trying to find a way to disprove me through some ego-feeling that YOU must be right (hence, destructive passion). Alternatively, weighing up with some of your other posts, I am developing a strong impression that you are out to construct some negativity here against the average British person which simply does not exist. As I said, British people are not as stupid as you might hope, for convenient capitalizing. They are quite capable of evaluating such unsavory elements dispassionately.

Seems like 'trolling' is your new favourite attack on me. I wonder why ?

What I am doing here GiG is highlighting, with one specific example, how you routinely and systematically distort actual objective reality in order to serve your own propaganda needs and how you then behave when challenged about it. I am doing it because I have watched you do this systematically over 10 years now and I find such behaviour contemptible. You are an enemy of truth and as such and as far as you are, you are therefore also my enemy.

[erolz66]

As I have said before, there simply is NO evidence I can present that you will ever concede shows the truth...

How often a word is used in print is not representative of how it is used in conversations. For example, in Cyprus there are several words of the Cypriot dialect that are very rarely used in print even though they are commonly used among people. And even though some of those words are used less as time passes they might appear more now in print because several authors are making a conscious effort to preserve the dialect. In the case you are discussing here, when a word becomes "politically incorrect" it is obvious that people will be more inclined to stop using such words in print because that is a record of them writing something "incorrect". But in conversations between friends which are "off the record" then people are much more likely to use "taboo" words. At the end of the day it is your word VS hers and there is no "evidence" you can provide ... unless there was a scientific survey for this specific issue using a large representative sample of the population.

Sotos do you have ANY interest in discussing and finding the actual objective reality of when usage of the word nigger transitioned from 'routine' to 'taboo' or is your ONLY objective here to try and support GiG regardless of actual objective truth. Dig deep Sotos, try and be totally honest with yourself and us when you consider this question.

You claim no sensible conclusions can be drawn from when usage of the word in print happened relative to a claim of it happening in general. I disagree. I think when a word does transition from normal acceptable every day usage to 'taboo' there is a correlation with is reduced and changed usage in both print and in speech. We can debate which happens first and what if any delay there is between the change in print and speech but GiG's original claim said nothing about its usage 'in speech'. She also herself tried to use its change in usage specifically in print to support her generalised claim. Again it just feels to me (and I suspect many others) that you are calming that essentially there can be no useful correlation in when usage of a word transitioned in print to when in transitioned in general not because you believe this is actually true but simply because doing so is necessary to meet the objective of trying to support GiG regardless of truth.

You say I have offered no evidence , so what is the Wikipedia article section below, under the headings of 'usage' and sub heading of 'British' if not evidence that the transition of the usage of this word in the UK occurred significantly earlier than the period GiG used in her claim ?

As recently as the 1950s, it may have been acceptable British usage to say niggers when referring to black people, notable in mainstream usages such as Nigger Boy–brand[citation needed] candy cigarettes, and the color nigger brown or simply nigger (dark brown);[11] however, by the 1970s the term was generally recognized as racist, offensive and potentially illegal along with the unambiguously offensive "nig-nog", and "golliwog".

I strongly suspect that even if a 'in speech' version of the google ngram project existed (and given the way things are progressing such may well exist in the future) and even if it ALSO showed an absolute reversal of usage of the words 'nigger' and 'black man' in the same or similar period as the 'in print' version shows, you would still refuse to admit that the claim that the transition of the word happened in the UK from 1994 onwards was incorrect, because your objective here is not what is actually true but simply to try and support GiG regardless of truth.

[GreekIslandGirl]

"Sotos, I explained that certain terms/names are offensive at different points in history/context (for example, the "N" word is taboo in the UK now and it is still used today)."

The absurdity of you NOW trying to claim you did not make out that the transition of the word's usage in the UK from 'routine' to 'taboo' occurred in the UK from 1994 onwards just once more shows the very behaviour I seek to highlight.

I didn't make any claims as to transitions for WHEN it became taboo. I said it is taboo NOW (that's not a transition it is the STATE of affairs NOW). More interesting would be discussing why words become taboo (but NOT with you as you lack functional meaning-recognition qualities). For example, you find it difficult to extract for yourself that a word can be BOTH at the same time and over the course of time at various levels in a non-scientific state (not that you are scientifically minded either, just playing with words until you can dig a way out and see some light).

Lesson for today: A word can be BOTH a TABOO and in USE!

[erolz66]

I didn't make any claims as to transitions for WHEN it became taboo. I said it is taboo NOW (that's not a transition it is the STATE of affairs NOW).

You exact words verbatim

Sotos, I explained that certain terms/names are offensive at different points in history/context (for example, the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK and now it is taboo).

And you still try an insist you made no claim about WHEN this change occurred. If the 'used less than 20 years ago' is NOT when you claim the transition happened then just what IS the relevance of this time period ?

Lesson for today: A word can be BOTH a TABOO and in USE!

Once more what you ACTUALLY said - verbatim

Sotos, I explained that certain terms/names are offensive at different points in history/context (for example, the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK and now it is taboo).

You did not say to Sotos "the word nigger in the UK is now taboo and yet still used today" and nor would that have made ANY sense in the orginal discussion if you had of said it. What you DID say VERBATIM was

Sotos, I explained that certain terms/names are offensive at different points in history/context (for example, the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK and now it is taboo).

[GreekIslandGirl]

I stated my certainty.

NOW it is taboo.

It is NOW taboo.

(Is it some inborn Turkish trait to word-twist until you can rub out the likes of the Armenian Genocide, Invasions of Cyprus, Greek names ... )

[erolz66]

I stated my certainty.

NOW it is taboo.

It is NOW taboo.

(Is it some inborn Turkish trait to word-twist until you can rub out the likes of the Armenian Genocide, Invasions of Cyprus, Greek names ... )

What you said was

Sotos, I explained that certain terms/names are offensive at different points in history/context (for example, the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK and now it is taboo).

What does your time frame in the verbatim quote above refer to or mean if it is NOT to WHEN the transition from usage changing from routine to taboo occured ?

When I first challenge your claim above your first response was

And what evidence do you have that it wasn't phased out some 20 years ago?

You did not say THEN 'I did not say the change happened in this period, I was just saying its still used today even though it is taboo now'. You said show me the evidence. I have shown the evidence and NOW you say 'I never said that the change happened 20 years ago'.

This is EXACTLY the kind of murdering of truth to suit your propaganda needs that I find so distasteful and am using this one example to highlight.

[Sotos]

Sotos do you have ANY interest in discussing and finding the actual objective reality of when usage of the word nigger transitioned from 'routine' to 'taboo' or is your ONLY objective here to try and support GiG regardless of actual objective truth.

No, I don't have much of an interest on this issue... from my perceptive as a Cypriot in a "Cyprus Forum" when some word started to be used less in the UK is a really insignificant issue. This topic was about the Scottish referendum which was big international news at the time so I understand that it can be discussed here ... but to waste so much time on discussing the usage of the word "nigger" in the UK is crazy!! And I don't care to support GiG on this since I don't care if the truth is one way or another. What I am saying is that usage in print doesn't necessarily correlate with usage in spoken language. Beyond that your experiences in the UK might be different. The Wikipedia article would indicate that your experience is closer to average... but then again it could also be that Wikipedia editors are people who are more similar to you than GiG. If there was a a citation pointing to a scientific research only then we could say for sure that your experience is indeed much closer to the average.

[GreekIslandGirl]

I didn't make any claims as to transitions for WHEN it became taboo. I said it is taboo NOW (that's not a transition it is the STATE of affairs NOW).

You exact words verbatim

Sotos, I explained that certain terms/names are offensive at different points in history/context (for example, the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK and now it is taboo).

And you still try an insist you made no claim about WHEN this change occurred. If the 'used less than 20 years ago' is NOT when you claim the transition happened then just what IS the relevance of this time period ?

You read but fail to comprehend. Here is the relevance of this time period, for Dummies!

The "20 years ago" qualification followed "routinely used". And, the "now it is taboo" is another CLAUSE and not part of that qualification!

I have colour-coded the two separate clauses for you. They are independent clauses. They can stand on their own. They each express one complete thought. Basic English.

Your brain has been routinely jumbling things up and that might be why you have to go round in circles never quite grasping the meaning.

[GreekIslandGirl]

When I first challenge your claim above your first response was

And what evidence do you have that it wasn't phased out some 20 years ago?

You did not say THEN 'I did not say the change happened in this period, I was just saying its still used today even though it is taboo now'. You said show me the evidence.

Go back to the explanations about clauses .... you're still mixed up about "usage" (which has been phased out) and "taboo" (which it most clearly is now).

(You've also introduced another problem you have which is the inability to allow debates to move on. Hence why you think it odd that I asked for evidence as a possible move onward or an insight into your confusion.)

P.S. Please don't attempt any more mangled meanings from your jumbled brain, there's a good boy. I'm also not interested in this aside remark on the N word usage I made to Sotos that had some relevance to a previous post of his.