> AFIK, *every* term we have for the toilet (including toilet) was devised > as a euphemism for a previous term, which was devised as a euphemism for > the previous term . . . > > And so it goes. Now 'gay' meaning, "happy, carefree" is ruined > forever. 'Special' has gotten all smarmy around the edges. > I don't really have a point or counter-point - everyone is making good sense, but the discussion and different viewpoints are so interesting and informative that I can't help but splash some of my paint on this technicolour canvas. 'Twas brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and and gimble in the wabe All mimsy were the borogroves And the mome raths out gabe Lewis Carrol - from "Jabberwocky". (from memory too, so please don't get upset if it's not perfect) I've heard these words called "port_man_teau" -- spelled wrongly <= ; ) no doubt -- meaning they are nonsensical combination words - slithey - maybe a combination of slimey and slither (we can only guess; Carrol doesn't explain his words). This is definitely subjective, and you can only get the gist of what he is describing, and you need to read the whole poem to get a better context, but it works. He is celebrating subjectivity, busting down pedantic rules and regulations regarding word use, definition, case, type, spelling, etc, and entertaining us too. Instruction and delight. I like it. It tickles. I think there's a place and need for this type of exploration of the language. In fact, I believe it is unavoidable. It's natural. Our language IS closely linked to how we think. Or actually, the reverse. How we think is dictated by language. If you think in Chinese you will have a different perspective from one who thinks in English. You can't help it - there is so much cultural and historical baggage attached to each expression and word and sound in a language. Compare the size of a Chinese translation of an English engineering textbook to the original. The Chinese translation is 3 or 4 times as large. Poetry translations generally fall way short of the truths the authors are entertaining. Chinese is *very* different from western languages, and carries immense amounts of baggage. (I've lived there, and speak enough to shop and travel, and believe me, it assumes a different thought process - and I'm not talking about grammatical construction - I don't want to (hell, can't) even get into the written language). So by definition (or at least by MY definition), language is extremely subjective. Its elastic nature is natural. Words are simulacrums of thoughts and ideas, and fuzzy ones at that, but we create them as naturally as a bird building a nest. Steve said: >There are cases of children growing up in complete isolation who develop >"ideologues" or whatever they are called--languages only they can >understand. As we get older our minds become less flexible, and tend to resist change. So we agree to definitions, and muddle through as best we can, and some of us, like Steve, can do more, and some of us, like Shakespeare, add to our vocabulary, and others, like Snoop Dog or Mace, co-op it, and some like Carrol destroy it and remake it into something else. Maybe Carrol was a destroyer because he was a mathematician. I had a calculus instructor in university who would never use traditional variables. He always called them something wacky, or used a mundane word like "elephant" instead (of X or Y). Functions and derivatives were a nightmare =).