My point is I think you are jumping to conclusions assuming everyone around you all use the term lazily an inaccurately - if you define the accurate usage you will only be defining your definition as it is a pretty organic and loosely applied noun IMO.johnhunt said:greg
i don't see how expressing a view on language usage is patronising.
I would argue the term has now evolved to be a way of people expressing general displeasure about others as you list above. People are entitled to use it in the way they see fit, it was a relatively meaningless word in the first place, hence the broad application.johnhunt said:julian
you want some definitions - he is what I think people mean when they use the word
chav - council house scum
chav - looks like council house scum
chav - young hooligan
chav - white/poor
chav - isn't as sophisticated as me
chav - has bad/no taste
chav - claims benefits
pretty odious expression then
By being broadly applied aka applied in different contexts by different people its meaning is fundamentally diluted. That's why I feel it's relatively meaningless.johnhunt said:how can a word with such a 'broad application' as you put it be 'relativively meaningless' I would have thought the opposite was true.
My point is you are not in a position to define the word, so how can you say anyone else is using it inappropriately? I don't accept it has a clear and distinct meaning. The English language is very organic and it has the potential to be appended rapidly, in large part because it draws words form many languages, cultures and regions. You seem to feel the word chav has a fixed meaning, I dont agree.johnhunt said:You are right 'people are entitled to use it in the way they see fit' when they do though they mostly sound bigoted, lazy and stupid.
Put more eloquently than I could muster Julian - I agree.julian2002 said:if they do sound bigoted, lazy and stupid then it's only by way of projection of your own idea of what the word means. as the word is SO undefined and can, as was espoused on the tv programme i mentioned earlier (the journo in question is julie burchill btw), be used as a badge of honour in some eyes i'd say the problem is yours not those who use the word and perhaps you should adjust your own ideas about those you describe in your list of 'meanings'.
i expect that the meaning of the word will eventually crystalise into a consistant menaing and in all probability will beome similar to various racial epiphets which are only acceptable when said by those it describes however that hasn;t happened yet, so at present i'll call a chav a chav - according to my own nebulously broad definition. if offense is taken then that's their problem.
'I expect that the meaning of the word will eventually crystalise into a consistant menaing...' eventually being the operative word there.johnhunt said:greg
whether the word is 'meaningful' is acedemic. i would have thought that as it's usage is curently so broad and undiscriminating that you have to say it's 'meaningful'. it's also a very judgemental expresion so infers more than say another noun like, say,horse.
i wasn't defining the word, i was repeating the different ways i have heard and read it used.
i don't feel it has a fixed meaning as you put it. If you'd bothered to read my posts then you should have realised that.
In julians post, that you seem to like so much, he conceeds that
'I expect that the meaning of the word will eventually crystalise into a consistant menaing and in all probability will beome similar to various racial epiphets'
exactly - then is it sensible to carry on using it?
You're wriggling John. I've simply drawn attention to the core points of your shifting [edited to add:] argument.johnhunt said:i wasn't trying to represent anyone, burt have enjoyed watching you miss the point time and time again
Tenson said:You don't know Burt?Where have you been man?!
penance said:STuck in a loopy cess pit that is my mind.