# ************ - Racial Slur or Not?



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

In the recent movie, Clerks 2, an unsuspecting fast food employee uses the term "************" not realizing it's a racial slur against black people. See the clip (contains explicit language):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpGdxQ0o3l4

Now, in the clip, he claims it's just a funny term for a generally lazy person (i.e. someone who sits on the porch all day), and that he is "taking it back".

Is it possible to "take back" a racial slur, and transform it from derogatory racial insult to acceptable general usage?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I just absolutely don't see the point in trying to change such a useless term.

I can see no point in trying to "breathe life" into something that is obviously a derogatory term to begin with.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Is it possible to "take back" a racial slur, and transform it from derogatory racial insult to acceptable general usage?


Language evolves, why not?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Is it possible to 'take back' a racial slur, and transform it from derogatory racial insult to acceptable general usage?" gt, linguistically speaking, such a slur could become part of the "general usage", but so long as it has the connotations of a slur, it shall not become acceptable. We may become desensitized to its use, but the intended recipiant of the slur does not feel any less insulted.

Personally, I had not heard of the term "************" until I went to teach in Waycross, Georgia. When asked what it meant, I got the two versions, the one about a lazy child and the other about the derogatory term against a person of African descent.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vexel said:


> I can see no point in trying to "breathe life" into something that is obviously a derogatory term to begin with.


Exactly.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Some words have evolved from acceptable to slur and I'm sure that have gone from slur to general usage. 
I remember reading Agatha Christie's "Dix petits nègres" - I think it's called "And Then There Were None" now...

CBC has an interesting brief on mutated language
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/mulatto.html


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

I've never heard that expression before, but I can certainly say I understood it right away because of the use of the word monkey, a very hateful word used by extremely racist people. I don't see how this can be taken back, or why you would want to.

In taking a slur back, there needs to be a sense of something positive behind it, a strength of some sort... I know many women who have accomplished this with derogatory words used to hurt them. But this particular slur? I'm having difficulty in seeing anything positive.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

singingcrow said:


> The word monkey, a very hateful word used by extremely racist people.


Monkey, really? I call my dog a little monkey all the time. I think extremely racist people would skip over this word and use something a little more degrading. 

As for "************" sure when directed at a coloured person, it is certainly meant to be harmful. As for taking it back, I think we're analyzing the film too much, you need to turn your mind off when watching those kind of movies. And sometimes close your eyes, especially during the donkey show.

In general can things be taken back? I don't know, they still call cigarettes "****" in England and there is a big movement for people to stop using the "N" word. I don't think that will work personally.

Why is it just racial comments that we are worried about being emotionally damaging? If find it odd that it seems socially acceptable to call someone fat, ugly or stupid but as soon as race comes into play, it is taboo. Is it because all races can be fat, ugly or stupid, but our ancestry is what divides us all? And why is it that people can ignore being called fat, ugly or stupid but not a racial slur? We all tell our kids to ignore stuff like that but as soon as it hits an adult there is a tendency to lash out, playing right into the hands of the abuser.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

singingcrow said:


> I've never heard that expression before, but I can certainly say I understood it right away because of the use of the word monkey, a very hateful word used by extremely racist people.


I can't count the times when our children were small I called them little monkeys for getting into trouble or asked them to stop monkeying around.

I did not know I was being racist to them. Sheesh, you learn something every day. Who knew?


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

We have a problem with words. Period. We're running out of words.

I watched the video.

He made the remark in reference to peoples' treatment of HIM, not anyone else. When he said it, he was not attacking anyone.

The woman took offense and then made a deliberate racial slur directed at him.

So help me understand. All white people are racist but no black people are?

Sorry, black people have an equal number of racial taunts that they direct against white people but we're not supposed to react?

I spoke up against something yesterday in another forum. My words were taken out of context and the attacks began and have now risen to the point where people are screaming at me in 48 point font. I stand by what I said. The fact that they chose to misunderstand and then refuse to listen to any explanation is their problem.

I made no personal comments, while they have called me all kinds of the most vicious nasty names that their cussing filter will allow and they have been very creative with alternate spellings.

But the consensus among them is that I'm the ONLY one who misspoke. Because I spoke first and they chose to take offense, they are now free to abuse me any way they want and no matter how far they take it, they are not in the wrong?

Give me a break.

I know that some people are blatantly racist, but I've been the receiver of racist behavior from some of our diverse population and it is just as hurtful, but as a white person, I have no recourse. 

Getting back to the video, perhaps racial relations would be better served if the offended parties looked at the origin of the phrase and tried to do something at their end.

Yes, I'm feeling the hurt and sorry for letting it oooze out here.

Margaret


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I feel your pain Margaret, everyday I waste so much time trying to word emails right so they don't sound a certain way or another. I think we all would have a lot more time if we just started talking again, on the phone or in person. 

I think people choose to be offended, they could just as easily ignore, or even ask for clarification. Becoming angry on a message board solves nothing except how intollarent someone is, and possible insecure.


----------



## DS (Oct 7, 2004)

winwintoo said:


> We have a problem with words. Period. We're running out of words.
> 
> I watched the video.
> 
> ...



Well put.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've never heard the term ************ in my life. I don't care if anyone thinks they own it or want to reclaim it. Next time I see a monkey sitting on a porch I will certainly remember it.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

This all reminds me of the one scene in Forest Gump, "my momma would just chase ***** off the porch with a broom." Why can't we all see the world through the nieve eyes of Forest Gump?


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Monkey, really? I call my dog a little monkey all the time. I think extremely racist people would skip over this word and use something a little more degrading.





Sinc said:


> I can't count the times when our children were small I called them little monkeys for getting into trouble or asked them to stop monkeying around.
> 
> I did not know I was being racist to them. Sheesh, you learn something every day. Who knew?


JumboJones and Sinc, I said the "use of the word monkey" not the word itself. You are obviously using it combined with affection when speaking to your dog and children. The combination of words can be very powerful. You both place the word little which in our culture can suggest something cute - an affectionate slur.

Really though, it doesn't matter what words are used, it hurts when the intent is to put someone down.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

singingcrow said:


> Really though, it doesn't matter what words are used, it hurts when the intent is to put someone down.


I think it is important to sort these kinds of things out, especially in this day and age. There are people on this board from every area of the planet and from every walk of life, it's hard to know when or if you are being offensive or hurtful. 

Take the following image for example:
http://earthhopenetwork.net/bush art/bush_monkey.jpg
Now I would say he looks like a monkey, but really one could take this comment a couple of different ways. 

1. He looks like an actual monkey, which is obviously what I meant by it. 

2. An over sensitive person on this board that chooses to find a double meaning into this could look at this as me saying that bush looks like a black person who all have been racially pegged as monkeys. Which isn't what I mean, but still could be read into as this.

I think we had similar discussions when Don Imus made his infamous remarks, which I personally didn't see as racial. Now if there was a word we had to "take back" it is "Nappy" I don't see how that is owned by anyone.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I too have been introduced to a new racial slur. Growing up in Nova Scotia with the largest black population in Canada through the 50's to 70's never heard that one.

On the subject of racial sensitivity I was working with a black man in the middle 70's. I shall call him Louie. Louie always made feel as I did something wrong. We were both in our early 20's at the time.

One day we were at a customer business for a pick up. The customer in my estimation was a late 50's to middle 60's aged white man. He said "now listen here boys blah blah blah blah blah blah."

Louie goes sideways at me over the comment "boys" and say " I more than 3 times 7, I'm not his son, he don't call me boy."

I advised Louie "he also called me a boy and he's older than dirt and we probably seem like boys to him.'" This seemed to calm Louie and he didn't verbally attack the customer.

The other thought I had was these are the Maritimes and the word "bye" and "boy(s)" were often used in general conversation instead of sir, fella or guy(s). I didn't express this thought to Louie.

After that I never felt on edge around Louie. It seemed to me that when I was around Louie I suppose to feel guilty for committing an earlier transgression because of my race.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

One of my business partners is black (Trinidadian) and one of my former co-workers is also black (Jamaican).

I still phone them up and tell them the "boys" are gathering for a little poker. Neither of them have poked me in 30 years of using the term to refer to them.

Sometimes I believe, minorities "look too hard" for a racial slur. We all need to take a valium and kick back if you ask me.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> We all need to take a valium and kick back if you ask me.


You offering?


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

I can't believe this is even a discussion, this scene is in the same movie that features sex acts with farm animals as a central theme. It was meant to shock, a reaction to rappers "taking back" the N work.

And referring to African Americans as "monkeys" is meant to be dehumanizing, that they aren't on the same level as the rest of society. Remember it wasn't that long ago that they didn't even have civil rights in the US.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

As a linguist, I am forever telling my undergrad and grad students that language evolves, but in every evolutionary process and change, the past never fully fades away. Thus, while the term "hoop skirts" is not used much anymore, it still remains a term in the English language. I challenge them to tell me the one word in the English language with the most meanings from the actual word, or from words directly derived from this root word. Of the 7700 undergrad and grad students I have taught here at Memorial, only three have ever gotten this one word correct .................. out of the nearly 700,000 words in the English language. Amazingly, most children learn to read/write this word by the end of grade one.

Thus, words like "************" may have current usage change its meaning, but in English, words have multiple meanings. However, negative words, once used, never fully lose their negative meanings. This is the nature of the English language. 

"Stick and stones may break my bones", but words can devastate you.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> However, negative words, once used, never fully lose their negative meanings. This is the nature of the English language.


Many words have changed their meanings over the years. I'm sure that there must be more examples...
famous > notorious
awe inspiring > awful
bow-legged > cute
coward > brave
blessed > silly
house wife > hussy 
stupid > nice
obedient > buxom
crafty > pretty
(original meaning) > word

More recently we have "bad" (still evolving) and "gay"


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Dr. G.... that would be the "F" word... where do I pick up my prize?

I was also under the impression that a ************ was the statue; white pants, red jacket, fishing rod, and yes black and yes, used as a racial term.

Cana racial term be changed; yes an no. The only way it could be changed is when it is embraced by those who it is against. Like the N-Bomb. I can't use, but it is ok for a brother to use it. 

I use crak'r to describe white people (which I am), so I have somewhat changed it's meaning to me. Then again, I am not sure what it really means and a few of my friends who are brothers are not sure either...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sorry, RunTheWorld, not even close. Remember, this word has the most official definitions, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, than any other word in the English language.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> out of the nearly 700,000 words in the English language.


It does not sound like we're running out of words. 

The language evolves and, as it evolves, keeping such slurs around is sad. This is not a matter of some ancient slur that has lost any derogatory meaning to anyone.

Occasionally people sound like they're defending their freedom or being a courageous fighter against the masses. That's quite delusional. Most, if not all of us, seem perfectly okay with changing our language for situations (around children, in a restaurant, etc.); the concept is not new.

Clear and simple English is still a remarkably flexible method of communication. Obscure words and idiotic slurs do not improve the communication for a diverse audience. The slurs may, however, serve as nice shorthand within homogenous groups that jus don' care what them thar high-falutin over-edumacated folks jibber jabber about. 

Completely unrelated fun history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G:

I don't believe that all negative terms retain negative meaning. The Vicorians referred to a chicken part as a "drumstick" because they found the word "leg" inappropriate.

David lLetterman called his company "Worldwide Pants" because the word "pants" was considered inappropriate for broadcast.

"Poppycock" derives from a dutch term meaning soft "feces" or "BS."

None of the three has retained any sting.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Tit okay, but cock is out*



> The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has banned the word for male birds from its website, drawing accusations of political correctness gone mad.


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21844526-5002700,00.html


Maybe Beej can "pimp" my dictionary....

Meanwhile I'll be enjoying one of these:
1 1/2 oz vodka
1 1/2 oz grapefruit schnapps
lemonade


Random House seems to have set up a labelling system for determining how offensive a word can be.
http://www.randomhouse.com/words/language/oq_chart.html


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Dr. G:
> 
> I don't believe that all negative terms retain negative meaning. The Vicorians referred to a chicken part as a "drumstick" because they found the word "leg" inappropriate.
> 
> ...


But I'll never be able to look at that can the same way again XX) 



Margaret


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> None of the three has retained any sting.


Poppycock.

"As bird lovers will know, a Parus Major is a great tit and while cocks do not get past the forum censor, tits do not cause offence. I've heard of PC but that is taking things too far."

Nice story AS. PC can certainly go too far, while at the same time we control our language all the time. The grey area is interesting. If they rename Slutsky equations, then I will demand action. beejacon


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Sorry, RunTheWorld, not even close. Remember, this word has the most official definitions, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, than any other word in the English language.


Set? I remember reading this a long time ago.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> If they rename Slutsky equations, then I will demand action. beejacon


Or part of a _Hick_sian demand....


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

SINC said:


> Sometimes I believe, minorities "look too hard" for a racial slur. We all need to take a valium and kick back if you ask me.


You're completely ignoring the differences in cultures, if you think that way.

"Louie" in an earlier post by BigDL and your co-workers may seem over-reacting on being called boy, but I can imagine how being called boy or son can be offensive in their culture. Just like in Western cultures, people are extremely sensitive to being described as fat. In Chinese cultures, it's complimentary as it is thought to be a feature of strength and health. I remember quite many years ago, my then best-friend was very vexed when my mother with a limited English vocabulary and knowledge of the western culture "complimented" him as fat compared to me. To this day, my mother still cannot comprehend why westerners view such description as negative, but she has learned not to praise anyone in that respect, even though it is true.

It is true that some minorities do take unintended insults too serious at times, but as a minority and a person who have experienced such abuse (in fact, several teenagers in a white cadillac yelled a racial slur and egged my car while my girlfriend and I were driving to her house a few days ago), sometimes it still feels uneasy to hear a slur that I know was unintended.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sorry, no, capitalK. However, you are getting close.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

HowEver, Lawn Jockeys, I always thought the lawn jockeys that were in sitting formation were porch monkeys...my friend used to call them that...apparently he was mis-informed. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> You're completely ignoring the differences in cultures, if you think that way.


With all due respect, what is wrong with that kind of thinking is that if multiculturalism is to work, cultures must blend on a daily basis in the workplace, and celebrate their differences at appropriate times elsewhere. As you so rightly pointed out, slurs CAN work both ways, but minorities tend to take it to extremes in reacting to miscues. 

Provincial human rights departments are too busy with such perceived complaints. Many of them are frivolous or based on the "my skin's a different colour, you can't say that to me" to start a law suit and profit. A recent thread discussed that very thing:

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/51261-racial-slur-sofa.html


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Hmm. There is all kinds of discrimination. To "criminalize" *racial* slurs, ignores and minimizes the other forms of discrimination.

And to define, even subtly, "racial slurs" to mean anything said to people whose skin is not white, ignores the fact that those of us with white skin receive at least as many slurs from the diverse population as they receive from us. 

The difference is that if your skin is not white, you get to decide what is a racial slur and what is not - and you don't need to send out a memo when you decide to take some formerly innocuous word as a slur - AND you get to complain and sue and hold the country hostage until your views are *HEARD* guddammit!!!!! 

On the other hand when a white person is deliberately slurred by a member of a diverse group, there is no recourse. We're supposed to turn the other cheek, they, after all, have been downtrodden all their lives, and we owe them.

Enough.

I had the misfortune of being placed in a position of authority over a man who was not born in this country and whose "culture" had no respect for women, did not allow him to be accountable to a woman, allowed him to belittle women and I could go on.

I had no recourse. I couldn't complain - my complaints were not taken seriously - and to be fair to management, they couldn't change the reporting structure because that would have been seen as discrimination.

The whole experience cost me dearly, my health suffered, my pocketbook suffered because I ended up leaving the job, and he was never called to task for his behavior.

Getting back to porch monkeys, I strongly believe that the reason blacks take offense at this particular slur is because they resent being identified with the culture that gave rise to the term in the first place.

Margaret


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

In the real world, multiculturalism is no screaming success. In fact reverse discrimination is alive and well as Margaret points out. Like I said, provincial human rights departments are too busy with such perceived complaints. Trouble is, not enough people bring the reverse to the forefront.

It truly exists and it can be just as ugly.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

I think the difference is, the general caucasian population receive less *actual* discrimination and disadvantages than the minority population. 



winwintoo said:


> Hmm. There is all kinds of discrimination. To "criminalize" *racial* slurs, ignores and minimizes the other forms of discrimination.
> 
> *And to define, even subtly, "racial slurs" to mean anything said to people whose skin is not white, ignores the fact that those of us with white skin receive at least as many slurs from the diverse population as they receive from us.
> 
> ...


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> I think the difference is, the general caucasian population receive less *actual* discrimination and disadvantages than the minority population.


You could not be more wrong. Not every white person comes in contact with a diverse person, so some white people escape the exposure, but those white people who interact with diverse peoples will all tell you that the "racial slurs" they receive are as hurtful and demeaning as any that go the other way.

Both are bad. The difference is that if your skin is white, you have no recourse. do you think for even a minute that if Don Imus (is that his name?) was black and made those slurs directed at white people there would have been the same uproar. Do you think he would have been fired?

In our striving for racial equality, all we've done is turned the tables and made the white population the target for discrimination. 

The fallout ain't going to be pretty.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

What I'm talking about are ACTUAL disadvantages. Everybody gets "hurtful" and "demeaning" slurs, I'm sure. But do you think caucasians or minorities have more difficulty in scoring a job, advancing in their career and perhaps, as simple as asking for a spare token for TTC? These are actual disadvantages and discriminations I'm talking about, not the mere "*****", "****", "paki", "cracker" or whatever that we can and should dismiss.



winwintoo said:


> You could not be more wrong. Not every white person comes in contact with a diverse person, so some white people escape the exposure, but those white people who interact with diverse peoples will all tell you that the "racial slurs" they receive are as hurtful and demeaning as any that go the other way.
> 
> Both are bad. The difference is that if your skin is white, you have no recourse. do you think for even a minute that if Don Imus (is that his name?) was black and made those slurs directed at white people there would have been the same uproar. Do you think he would have been fired?
> 
> ...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Wow, white people sure are hard done by. They ought to be preferentially treated for a while, since we feel so sorry for them.

Forget about the last 5000 years. I mean some *real* preferential treatment. Starting now. Like they should be able to derogate other people no matter what. And when someone says they can't, they can just say, "Hey, it's our turn now! We're getting some preferential treatment, pal!" And that would be that.

That will make up for all those white people whose land was stolen, or who couldn't get that job or apartment or mortgage, or who were hunted and lynched for looking at someone the wrong way (or not even), or who face reverse discrimination every single day. Stand up, white people! Your time has come to make up for all that slight disadvantage, and inability to be freely racist, that has been wrought upon you so unfairly!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

So it is alright for a visible minority to complain about preferental treatment and not a caucasian, because of something our ancestors may or may not have done? Unless you were the one told to sit at the back of the bus or sitting in the concentration camps, I don't think you have the right to delve into the past and play the "my grandparents were slaves" card. There are sob stories that can be heard from any side.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> What I'm talking about are ACTUAL disadvantages. Everybody gets "hurtful" and "demeaning" slurs, I'm sure. But do you think caucasians or minorities have more difficulty in scoring a job, advancing in their career and perhaps, as simple as asking for a spare token for TTC? These are actual disadvantages and discriminations I'm talking about, not the mere "*****", "****", "paki", "cracker" or whatever that we can and should dismiss.


No doubt there is "actual" discrimination based on skin color and I hope as a society, we are trying to change that. 

A question though, how does it advance the case against "actual" discrimination when perceived discrimination is criminalized for the white population but not the other way around?

I want to thank you for engaging in this dialog with me. If more of us on both sides are willing to bring the issue into the open I think great strides can be made. 

Margaret


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

winwintoo said:


> I want to thank you for engaging in this dialog with me. If more of us on both sides are willing to bring the issue into the open I think great strides can be made.
> 
> Margaret


Very true, but there appear to be comments that are "history of convenience remarks" intended to weaken your position Margaret. Those are not in any way fostering the making of great strides. Some indeed do understand your particular situation.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

To change the subject a little from race/skin colour in a Movie to an instance from real life case of an alleged discrimination based on sexual proclivity. 

Monday morning on CBC Radio One's "The Current" there was a discussion of "reverse discrimination". 
A woman was refused service at a patio area of a Gay Bar in Montreal.

A complaint was filed using the same clause in the provincial Charter that was created to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The CBC web page and story are here CBC Radio | The Current | Whole Show Blow-by-Blow



CBC's the Current said:


> Bar Ban
> If you stroll Montreal's gay village and into one of the bars such as Bar LeStud, that's what you might hear. Bar Le Stud bills itself as a "truly manly meat market," and although it has a women's night on Wednesdays it prides itself on being a place for men only.
> 
> These days, the bar is at the centre of a heated debate about individual liberties and community rights.
> ...


You may listen to the broadcast if you scroll down past Bar Ban: Australia to "Listen to The Current: Part 1" and have RealPlayer.


----------



## printerman (Oct 5, 2006)

*absolutely maybe?*

leave it alone! its a slur just like calling us white boys, ghost, or canuck! No big deal.
Its safer to say it from one white boy to another. Similar (note please, I did not type the word 'Like' or 'Absolutely') to calling a black person (actually brown, if you look close) a '******'. Its a term from eons back referring to, he/she is my '******' referring to a slave or servant. The term just evolved. And now a days everyone is upset about it. 
If said amoungst friend who are not white, make sure you are on good terms.
Its a racial slur only if spoken in a mean way. Locally, one of our politicians uses it frequently. She is a white woman with a maloto child, created from a black&white union.
despite all that, lets get on with life, and enjoy


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

Dead thread walking! was 6 years since the last posting!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep and until today, the poster hadn't been active since 2008 either. Odd.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Parole?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

iMouse said:


> Parole?


beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Someone wants to put an ad in the classifieds.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> . I challenge them to tell me the one word in the English language with the most meanings from the actual word, or from words directly derived from this root word. Of the 7700 undergrad and grad students I have taught here at Memorial, only three have ever gotten this one word correct .................. out of the nearly 700,000 words in the English language.


Hi Marc, I just noticed this thread being bumped up from the original post date and saw your question. I didn't see an answer, my guess would be the word "set", probably wrong but would be interested in the answer.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Hi Marc, I just noticed this thread being bumped up from the original post date and saw your question. I didn't see an answer, my guess would be the word "set", probably wrong but would be interested in the answer.


Sorry. The word is "run".


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> Sorry. The word is "run".


Thanx Marc, i figured it had to be a very common word.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Rps said:


> Thanx Marc, i figured it had to be a very common word.


I found this.....



> Most Definitions
> 
> The word SET has the most definitions of any word in the English language. *SET has 464 definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary.* Here's how the others stack up:
> RUN - 396 (defs.)
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

winwintoo said:


> I found this.....


Interesting. Set, however, does not use the words that are derived from the root word as in run, such as runny nose, or running for office, etc.


----------

