If you read back over what I said, you may note that I never disputed any of your meanings. What I did do was challenge your assertion that your usage was the only valid one.

I do agree that continuing this exchange is likely to be of little benefit to me.

Freemann

I’m glad your idea of language works for you. Thankfully, language and people are diverse and support multiple viewpoints. Perhaps members of a linguistics forum might be more interested in engaging with you on whether linguistic evolution and change can be accurately characterised as “distortion” and “misuse” or as natural development.

Spelling counts, indeed. But I have big fat fingertips,which often slip, and teeny-tiny screen print,which makes it hard to read myown posts, so lots of times I don’t see my mistakes until after I have hit “Submit Comment” [rueful grin]

Freemann

A preist and one of his parishioners were working inthe garden on the church grounds. The parishioner dropped a large rock on his toe. “God damn it…” he began, and then, remembering the place and his company, aplogised, “I’m sorry, Father, I didn’t mean…..”

“It’s all right, my son,” replied the priest, “Although as a professional, I hate to see technical language misused,.”

Popular uses and distorions of technical medical and psychological terms is not new, and it often has been in a perjoritive sense.

Modern lexicansa record the misuse of many words, when the misuse becomes wide spread. See, for example, the change in the meanings of “imply’ vs “infer” over the years.

“Homoerotic” and “Homophilia” are not neologisms, but are 19th Century psychiatric terms for non-pathelogical and pathelogical attraction to the same sex, respectively. Unlike “homosexual” or “homophobic” their lingustic formation is consistant with grammar and medical usage of Greek terms. You may not choose to speculate on the motives of the persons who introduced those words, but philiological history demonstartes that both were introduced to create new emotitional associations to the concepts named: “Homosexual” to remove the perjorative stigma of the original popular term “sodomite”, and “homophobia” to crate a perjoritive stigma for persons who disagreed with the positions of “Gay Rights” activists.

Popularusage is extremely fluid, and changes all the time. Medical and scientific usage and meaning has to be more conservative.

Freemann

Sorry I was mistaken. Did not have my reading glasses with me.

I still think spelling should count.

Carry on.

Thank you for your apology. It wasn’t necessary but it was very nice of you.

Actually, for the term “neologism” to apply, by definition it does matter whether a term was coined yesterday or 30 years ago.

I am interested to note your assumption that the term “neologism” must also include a nuance of being meaningless to the general population. According to one of many similar published definitions, “neologism” only includes the nuance of meaninglessness to the general population when used in the context of psychiatry. As I understand Lady Julia’s post, the psychiatric context is irrelevant on this occasion.

It was made up to look like a medical/psychiatric term, to fit in with other -phobias. [...] If we were to consider “homophobia” as a correct psychological term, it would mean “fear of [some person or thing which is perceived as] the same, in the case of sex, “fear of the same sex.” You and I both know that is not how it is used. Second, a -phobia is a pathological, involutary fear and revulsion of a situation, thing person or object. a person suffering from a -phobia is sick and needs to be treated, is to be pitied and felt concern for, not disparaged. You and I both know that that is not how the term is used [...] A possible term to for what you claim to mean, without the perjoritive tone, might be “homophiliacophobia.”

I am interested to note your further assumptions that the term “homophobia” is newly coined and currently used exclusively as a technical psychological term, that the similarly coined term “homophiliac” is apparently more meaningful, and that the suffix “-phobia” is exclusively used to describe pathological and involuntary fear and revulsion.

Whilst I cannot speak for the motives of those who coined these terms, I know that the term “homophobia” and the “-phobia” suffix both most certainly incorporate meanings in currently established usage which you have disregarded, even though those meanings have been published in reputable lexicons for many years.

I do agree that words are very important, and I agree that every individual is right to assert their preference for the words most appropriate for them. However, on the one hand you denigrate the term “homophobic” as a meaningless neologism which you decline to use, yet on the other hand you expressed your preference for “homophiliac” as a neologism (according to your definition) which is meaningful for you.

However meaningful your preferred terms are for you personally, I’m pretty sure a lot of people (including myself) consider your rejected term to be meaningful to them and your preferred term less so. However, I certainly can accept that what is linguistically meaningful to the general population can still be meaningless for you.

Since other people’s usage of these terms is apparently so problematic for you, I’m wondering if the semantics or etymology section of a linguistics forum might more germanely fulfill your interests?

Now that is an example of the difficulty in communicating through internet posts. I did not mean to sound snide. My apology was sincere, as I recognised that I may well have stepped over the line By disputing with Lady Julia on her own Blog. The remark about Socrates referred to making my points by asking questions. the Socratic Method. The remark about hemlock was an attempt at lihgt -hearted gallows houmor. The historical Socrates was given the choice of being bannished or drinking hemlock for his irreverence. I do not wish to be bannished from Lady Julia’s complex of sites and groups. Hence the plea to be excused from drinking the hemlock.

Susan,

Whom do I remind you of, and why does it freak you out? Was it something I said?

Freemann