# Need a scale for words' acceptability



## cheshire

There are a lot of words, phrases and expressions that "seem entirely normal and are used a great deal but ought to be something else." I think some of these kinds tend to get corrected by editors, teachers or professors, some don't.

I feel the need for a standardized (within WR forum) acceptability scale.

Words, phrases or expressions

1 you can use anywhere, any situations
2 you can't use to your opposite sex
3 you can't use to strangers or your seniors
4 you can't use to handicapped people
5 you can't use to teachers
6 you can use in daily conversations, writings but not in official documents, newspaper columns or academic journals
7 you can use if you are an artist, who is allowed as convention to break the usual grammatical rules to achieve literary effect

http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=1950496&postcount=12http://forum.wordreference.com/show...rence.com/showpost.php?p=1950496&postcount=12

Please discuss if we really need it, and if we do, fix the details.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello Cheshire,

A few responses:

First, the link is broken.

Next, we do suggest in forum guidelines the use of one or more instances of  to signal vulgar or very vulgar words and terms.

Beyond that, the variations in what is acceptable are huge.  They are functions of, among other things, regional variants, written as opposed to spoken language, context (Yes, context is paramount!), the relationship of the speakers and listeners, age groups and a host of other factors.

We do not have a board of standards to judge each and every word used in the forums, nor do I imagine anyone would volunteer to be the judge, except perhaps a rigorous puritan. When there is a doubt, one can check the WR dictionaries or others for notions such as "slang", "vulgar", etc. 

Most foreros are good about marking vulgar terms, or suggesting in their posts when a word is inappropriate for use in formal settings.

That seems adequate for most people, most of the time.

Regards,
Cuchu


----------



## cheshire

Yet I want at least 5, 6, 7 to be signals used.


----------



## Joelline

I agree with Cuchu. I don't think we need a standardized scale. On the other hand, the issues you raise are issues which most of us should probably address when asking or responding to questions. Too often, people type out a phrase or a clause and say, "Can I say this?" I almost always want to answer, "It depends." To whom do you want to say this? In what context or environment? In other words, if we all added more context (in questions and in answers!), the questions you list above might all be answered without a specific list.


----------



## cheshire

That would be ideal if the ones who ask made sure to clearly set the conditions where one expression might be OK. I (at least I) need 5,6,7 to ask clarity.


----------



## Jana337

cheshire said:


> That would be ideal if the ones who ask made sure to clearly set the conditions where one expression might be OK. I (at least I) need 5,6,7 to ask clarity.


That would be a too mechanistic approach, Cheshire. If you feel that people who replied didn't address the acceptability issue sufficiently, you should just ask.

Jana


----------



## maxiogee

What is acceptable in Dublin might not be acceptable in some other parts of Ireland.
What is acceptable to one Dubliner might not be acceptable to another.

-- and that's before we leave this little island!


----------



## cheshire

OK, and Ole!
And thanks.


----------



## lsp

I don't mean to be facetious, cheshire, but what makes you think people would use 5, 6 or 7 signals the way you intend (any more than they use the 3 we suggest now)? Among the things we currently suggest that are not always adopted by the community, we suggest people put their country of origin in their profile to help the membership at large, and yet people do some creative things with that suggestion, too.


----------



## danielfranco

I have seen threads where somebody usually pipes up with, "oi! you shouldn't use this phrase when talking to Martians!!" And then many people will unload the standard, "oh, yeah? Well, in my tiny isolated village that's precisely how we speak to Martians AND Americans!!"

So, I mean to say that maybe such, erm, _precise_ standard classifications would result in those "eternal arguments", where "regionalists" want to reign supreme, and "generalists" want to blow raspberries at them.
Or something.


----------



## maxiogee

danielfranco said:


> So, I mean to say that maybe such, erm, _precise_ standard classifications would result in those "eternal arguments", where "regionalists" want to reign supreme, and "generalists" want to blow raspberries at them.
> Or something.



And then there's we few, we happy band, we "regional generalists"....

and this is for any who identify with that title


----------



## panjandrum

cheshire is looking for precision where no precision exists.
And there would need to be many, many more classifications.  For example, what is acceptable in any communication also depends on the medium, the relationship between the participants, and the status of the speaker/writer.  For example, if a normally fluent writer includes a really badly-written sentence it is likely to be assumed to be deliberate and for literary effect - and therefore accepatable.

I fear this is a lost cause.


----------



## cuchuflete

Nice example, Panj.  

Yes, we do read good writers with care.


----------

