Do all lexicons have the "you misunderstand" etymology that Hec cited, or just that one dictionary that he cited?

No, they don't. Some still (like wordnik, for instance) still cite gypsy.

*blink* When did we decide to stop using "crazy"? And in what context? The word is used in so many different ways in modern vernacular, everything from "that was crazy awesome!" to "dancing it up like crazy" (which I literally heard on the Today show as I was writing this).

There are a lot of places elseweb -- disability communities, for example -- that have moved away from "crazy" as a modifier because it's not exactly a good reflection on mental illness. "Crazy" as a pejorative obviously doesn't cast mentally ill individuals in a good light, and "crazy awesome" -- well, I feel like that's the junior-high justification for using "gay" to mean "pathetic," or whatever.

...you do know about "lame," right? t edit I ask that because I almost said "the junior-high justification for using 'gay' to mean 'lame'," and, well, that's not cool.

Do all lexicons have the "you misunderstand" etymology that Hec cited, or just that one dictionary that he cited?

No, they don't. Some still (like wordnik, for instance) still cite gypsy.

I went and looked at Wordnik after I posted that, and I noticed that the etymology section says it's probably from "Gyspy." I'd like to read more about it, but I gots some work to do, dang it. I'll have to look stuff up tonight.

I am not asking to be a dick or button poke-y, but with language being a living, changing being, can there ever be a time when the common (and by common, I mean in general usage among a society) definition changes and therefore replaces (even if temporarily) the original etymology? For instance: the word gay. For 500 years it meant "happy, cheerful, etc". But then common usage changed the definition to mean "homosexual" and now, as far as I know, using it to mean "happy, cheerful, etc" (as well as the negative pejoratives) is not acceptable. Can't language, specifically words and their definitions and like the people using it from generation to generation change the meanings and ... intentions (?) behind the use?

Speaking only for myself, I use the word crazy. I use it to describe my mother when her meds are low and she's being a right pain in the ass and I use it when Emeline gets out of bed and her hair is standing straight up.

I think that using "gay" to mean "happy" is acceptable, but kind of weird. Like, probably no one will be offended by it, but you'll just sound old-fashioned.

I don't think using "gay" to mean "happy" is unacceptable. Just using it to mean "bad."

And I also have that question. People ("people") are OK with "hysterical," right? I mean, generally.

No, they don't. Some still (like wordnik, for instance) still cite gypsy.

I went and looked it up in my OED with the little magnifying glass and everything.

The first cite is from 1750 and is the thing I listed - basically slang from Cambridge students for servants at University. But in that case it's used as a noun. Then the word comes around in the mid-19th century as American slang where we get the verb that's common now. I'm not sure if those are related, and the first could be derived from the Greek and the second a shortening of Gypsy. But even there they qualify it as "probably from Gypsy."

Sometimes linguistically you can track the evolution of word usage and see something like "he gypsied me out of my money" to becoming "he gypped me." But there doesn't seem to be that kind of cite trail here so it's murky.

Ok. That was the best example I could come up with.

Another might be the word "gal". I'm trying to find a citation for it, but I remember reading a book that said "gal" was a pejorative used toward black women, particularly in Jim Crow South. The primary etymology shows it just being slang for girl or woman, but for a time and in a particular place, it wasn't as innocuous.

My point being, shouldn't the intent of the person using the word override the etymology IF common usage shows that general intention is not to insult or offend?

OOH! OOH! It's called "semantic change"! It's a thing!

I love you guys. I swear I'm like 10,000x smarter because ya'll make me think about shit I'd totally just la-la-la Scarlett O'Hara away from my brain.

I guess I don't really understand that because as far as I know the word "crazy" has never been used as anything BUT a slang term. It's never been used to mean exclusively people with true mental illnesses, has it?

I can and do see the argument applying for "OCD", or "schizo," or "insane." But crazy?

Okay, i did some reading, and it looks like the word "crazy" was used medically (though probably not exclusively so) until at least the late 19th century. But the phrase "drive someone crazy" was being used in a less severe meaning as early as 1873, the art of crazy quilting caught on around the same time, and the 20th century medical establishment has never used the term "crazy" as a diagnosis. Psychotic? Yes. Insane? Yes.

Personally, when I say "Tom Cruise is a little bit crazy" I don't mean he actually has diagnosable mental illness. I mean he regularly behaves well outside the normal distribution of human behavior. And I will always find a way to say that, frankly; judging Tom Cruise's behavior from a distance is probably not the nicest thing to do, but it's a very human thing that isn't going away any time soon.

I can see where the word "crazy" can be sensitive, but in my mind it's not incorrect to cal Tom Cruise crazy, but to call somebody who actually is struggling with manic depression crazy. I feel like the term has always been somewhat pejorative, so it should only be used in pejorative situations. This is very distinct from the word "retarded," which began as a perfectly valid medical term.