I must admit that while I have heard of the word and did know that,
despite its sound, it had no racial meaning, I could not remember the
definition.  So I looked it up in the dictionary - what a wonderful book
to own - and now have learned something new.  I have expanded my
vocabulary and become a little more knowledgeable.  Personally, I think
it is horrible to suggest that the department head only used the word to
sound superior.  So what if he did, didn't all of us that had to look
the word up in the dictionary benefit a little?  Didn't we all become
just a tiny bit more enlightened?
I realize that we shouldn't talk above peoples' heads (or talk down to
them)  but we also shouldn't give up our own education when speaking to
them either.
There are millions of words in the English language.  The more words we
are able to use correctly, the better able we will be communicate
effectively.  We can actually say exactly what we mean; although we
never know if the people listening to us understand what we are saying.
Maybe this is one of those "damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't"
situations.  I still think we shouldn't give up on expanding our
vocabulary.
That's my 2 cents.
H. Carroll

>Then let's engage in a conversation about all the reaction to the use
of "niggardly" by a department head in Washingtion who was fired by the
Mayor for using it.  Once people began to realize that the word had
absolutely no racial origin (it means stingy and comes from old
English), they started making excuses like "It's an archaic term that no
one understands, therefore, should not be used,"  It was  probably used
by the department head to show his superiority,"  "Even if it does not
mean anything racial, it might be construed as such, so should be
eliminated from our vocabulary."
>
>Talk about demands  that we dumb down so the undeducated and uninformed
can understand us!  How about our educational establishment demanding
more of students.  Or is it the case that most educators would not know
the word either (my wife is a second grade teacher, bless her heart, and
she did not know the meaning of the word).
>
>
>------
>Robert Handy
>Brazoria County Historical Museum
>100 East Cedar
>Angleton, Texas  77515
>(409) 864-1208
>museum_bob
>[log in to unmask]
>http://www.bchm.org
>
>----------
>From:   Heidi Carroll[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:   Monday, February 08, 1999 8:29 AM
>To:     [log in to unmask]
>Subject:        Re: Was: Your TOP EVENT Now: news
>
>Would it be naive to think that perhaps if newspapers did not write at
>the educational level of the audience, the "'dumbing down' of literacy
>in America" would at least slow down, hopefully even reverse itself?
>We all must attend high school, so why can't we read higher than a
>fourth grade level anyway?
>H. Carroll
>
>
>>newspapers adhere to a writing style that suits their
>>audience; there are those that consciously write for those with
>fourth-grade
>>educations.  There are very few newspapers of quality left in the
>United
>>States.  Unfortunately, we're seeing evidence on this list of the
>"dumbing
>>down" of literacy in America.
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com