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.

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?

Absolutely, but there are certain instances where the word itself has such a negative connotation that will cause a reaction regardless of intent (niggardly being a prime example).

It's like negligent homicide. You didn't mean to kill/offend, but you went into it knowing that it could happen.

And frankly, I think that if you have to stop to explain etymology, it would just be easier to use something else :)

Well, if you explain it, sure. Then unless you like coming off as a pedantic, know-it-all ass, maybe using another word would be a better option. (NOTE: I am not, in any way, saying anyone on this board resembles this. Except maybe MM. He's a total ass.)

But for words like "gypped", I would venture to say that common usage does not define it as having to do with and or pertaining to the Roma.

(And ita - I hope you know I am not picking on you for calling Hec out on the word, which I totally understand. This is just something I've actually been thinking a lot about lately as Emeline's vocabulary gets more and more influenced by her peers and she asks where words come from.)

When I learned about "gypped," I was surprised, and, given the etymology, I tried to stop using it. That seemed like a clear slur, like "gay" to mean "stupid." I think I probably still use it, but maybe less.

When I learned about "lame," I was surprised but confused because although I could see where it came from, it seemed to me that the original usage had practically died out to be replaced by this slang term. Maybe I use it less, but I still use it.

When I learned about "crazy," I was just baffled. When I read up on it, I could see the reasons, but, like Gris said, I felt like "crazy" and its ilk had transformed into slang so strongly that they were divorced from their original meanings. I am kind of trying to use it less, but it's such a part of my lexicon and so pervasive in culture that, honestly, it's just not something I want to devote my mental and emotional energy to. Perhaps that makes me an ableist douchebag, but so be it. (Not saying anyone here would think that of me, but, oh, some of the more passionate members of the Mark Watches community, damn.)