• ominouslemon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    If people still use it that way, it should be in the dictionary. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive

    • Mothra@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This, especially since dictionaries (at least Spanish ones) have a lot of abbreviations to indicate when a term is archaic, deprecated, rude, etc. Even if nobody uses it in such way today, considering it was used not so long ago, it should remain. It’s history and evidence of the discrimination, I get that it’s offensive but erasing it from the dictionary doesn’t do anything for their cause.

      • sik0fewl@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Here’s the definition:

        1. adj. despect. Dicho de una persona: Avariciosa o usurera. U. t. c. s.

        “despect.” is despectivo, which means “pejorative” or “derogatory”. Also, it’s the last definition given, not the first.

  • azvasKvklenko@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s like in Polish - the word “żyd” (jew) has negative connotations, and maybe it becomes rare in usage these days, but the negative meaning sticks. It’s still an offense to call somebody that.

    We have more words like this (cygan, rumun) that on its own are official words for etnicity or nationality, but carry some negative meaning. We also have dedicated words to call many different groups in offensive ways.

    However languages happen organically and they reflect how people speak, not the other way that there’s some sort of entity that dictates how the entire population should speak (although reformations are possible).

    Funny how people try to regulate that by law. We had such case in Polish when few years ago feminists tried to change how we call professions that are typically assigned with men, but some women are also performing them (police officer, firefigter, ministry etc). Some of those forms didn’t make sense completely due to semantics, some were dropped from the language decades ago and sound archaic or unnatural, the lobby lead to memes at the very most.

      • Cabrio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Fireman and policeman in English are also not offensive because they aren’t referring to gender or sex.

        Human - Group
        Humans - Collective Individuals
        Man - Individual
        Men - Collective Individuals (Non-sexed)

        Not to be conflated with

        Men - Collective (Sex Male)
        Women - Collective (Sex Female)
        Wo - Female, men - collective individuals (non-sexed).

        Keep in mind these are all traditional definitions and were constructed before sex and gender were determined to be separate and before intersex was a classification.

        We now often conflate those in common English with human and man and person being interchangeable. As man (individual) with man (sex). And many others conflate sex and gender.

        Firefighters - Group
        Fireman - Firefighting Individual
        Firemen - Firefighting Collective (Non-sexed)

        Police - Group
        Policeman - Policing Individual
        Policemen - Policing Collective (Non-sexed)

        The arguments for removing gender from professions is based on the misapprehension that the professions were ever related to gender and as a result mass illiteracy has made it an “issue”.

  • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m saddened to hear that there are still an appreciable amount of Spanish people talking about us that way, but I’m not upset at the dictionary for recording the way the language is used.

    I’m guessing it’s approached in something of a similar way to how English language dictionaries handle the word gyp, which is to give its definition and note that it is offensive.

    • cosmic_skillet
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly, dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe how words are used, not prescribe how they should be used.