let me correct my statement homophobia isn’t just that homophia is a word like any other that goes beyond its wikipedia definition because of the context its used in
You can use pretty much any word in any context, and the context you previously used “homophobia” in was you saying: “homophobia isnt fear or aversion just because it ends on phobia”.
That’s exactly the reason that homophobia does mean “fear or aversion”. It is used in other contexts as well, and mostly when it’s used it’s used to describe prejudice that is implied to stem from fear or aversion to homosexuality.
I get your point that colloquial use isn’t always the same as the strict prescriptive meaning of the word, but do you get that just because someone doesn’t know the prescriptive meaning of the word doesn’t mean the meaning doesn’t exist?
It’s the same as the use of the word “literally.” Colloquially, you can use “literally” as emphasis, but there is an actual prescriptive meaning, and that meaning is the reason that the word is used in that context to begin with. It was always used as emphasis, but the “correct” way to use it as emphasis is in a context which “literally” can actually be applied to without it sounding weird.
And the use of “literally” as unconnected emphasis is accepted by major linguistic institutions, so it’s not wrong per se, but…
latin and dictionaries arent rules tho they are teching, guiding language to allow for a common consensus and tge consensus has been for a while that anarchy can both be lawlessness and the existence of a horizontal government struckture built of syndicates and communes
The prescriptive meanings from latin are pretty much the sole reason we still name things in Latin; because people can understand instantly the prescriptive meaning of the word.
You know “neo” is “new”, you know “anti” is “against”, “pro” is for, etc. Dictionaries are also pretty much exactly for the rules of the language.
That doesn’t preclude meanings which aren’t in the dictionary though.
You’ll notice I haven’t argued against this vague added definition of yours. I’ve just said it’s not the main meaning, just like pure emphasis isn’t for “literally”, “literally” actually meaning “literally” as opposed to “figuratively”.
let me correct my statement homophobia isn’t just that homophia is a word like any other that goes beyond its wikipedia definition because of the context its used in
You can use pretty much any word in any context, and the context you previously used “homophobia” in was you saying: “homophobia isnt fear or aversion just because it ends on phobia”.
That’s exactly the reason that homophobia does mean “fear or aversion”. It is used in other contexts as well, and mostly when it’s used it’s used to describe prejudice that is implied to stem from fear or aversion to homosexuality.
I get your point that colloquial use isn’t always the same as the strict prescriptive meaning of the word, but do you get that just because someone doesn’t know the prescriptive meaning of the word doesn’t mean the meaning doesn’t exist?
It’s the same as the use of the word “literally.” Colloquially, you can use “literally” as emphasis, but there is an actual prescriptive meaning, and that meaning is the reason that the word is used in that context to begin with. It was always used as emphasis, but the “correct” way to use it as emphasis is in a context which “literally” can actually be applied to without it sounding weird.
And the use of “literally” as unconnected emphasis is accepted by major linguistic institutions, so it’s not wrong per se, but…
latin and dictionaries arent rules tho they are teching, guiding language to allow for a common consensus and tge consensus has been for a while that anarchy can both be lawlessness and the existence of a horizontal government struckture built of syndicates and communes
The prescriptive meanings from latin are pretty much the sole reason we still name things in Latin; because people can understand instantly the prescriptive meaning of the word.
You know “neo” is “new”, you know “anti” is “against”, “pro” is for, etc. Dictionaries are also pretty much exactly for the rules of the language.
That doesn’t preclude meanings which aren’t in the dictionary though.
You’ll notice I haven’t argued against this vague added definition of yours. I’ve just said it’s not the main meaning, just like pure emphasis isn’t for “literally”, “literally” actually meaning “literally” as opposed to “figuratively”.