i think you are missing the point
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.
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.
how can a word with such a 'broad application' as you put it be 'relativively meaningless' I would have thought the opposite was true. 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.
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 and in all probability will beome similar to various racial epiphets'' julian - my point is that we are there now. ''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'' no, it's pretty clear how the word is used and is not my 'projection'.
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. 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.
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?
'I expect that the meaning of the word will eventually crystalise into a consistant menaing...' eventually being the operative word there. If you are not prepared to define it how can you argue people are being lazy in their usage? The level of laziness would be determined by how much variance from your norm. Why do feel the need to stick up for white working class south londoners? Has it occurred to you they might not need you to "reprazent" them?
Wasn't there a TVR claimed to be the worlds fastest road car or something? I remember it having a a triangle of exhausts stacked on the back. Can't find reference to it....
Do you mean the Speed 12? I remember seeing it at a Motor show. I remember going up to Peter Wheeler and saying well done. Can't believe I did that. Feel a bit of a pillock now.
Not sure. I'm not really "into" cars. We've a TVR garage round here that used to be in the route to and from school. I thought it was a TVR but the car I'm thinking of had a sort of triangle/pyramid of exhaust pipes on the rear, and there were claims of worlds fastest blah blah blah...
''Has it occurred to you they might not need you to "reprazent" them?'' i wasn't trying to represent anyone, burt have enjoyed watching you miss the point time and time again anyway TVR's - silly looking cars but no doubt fun.......................................
You're wriggling John. I've simply drawn attention to the core points of your shifting [edited to add:] argument.
