Grammar Nazi

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Yes, people joke around. Yes, society should continue to discuss the horrors of World War II and what the Nazis were and did. But what you've ignored is the reality of what happens when words are used in a manner that diminishes their meaning to people as the distance in years between events and when those words are being used grows greater. So, do you agree that such a phenomenon may unfold? And if so, do you stand by your defense of the use of the term?

Yes, I agree that can happen. And as I said above, to prevent that from happening, the atrocities of the Nazis should also be continuously discussed so the real meaning is preserved.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yes, I agree that can happen. And as I said above, to prevent that from happening, the atrocities of the Nazis should also be continuously discussed so the real meaning is preserved.

I trust you mean "continually" and not "continuously" (since the thread is about usage, write broadly, a correction is in order, although this is not a matter of grammar).

Of course, the problem is more complex than you insist on making it, assumedly to be contrarian ... since for the life of me I can see no other point. Would you personally agree, then, that any time you might use the word "Nazi" in this humorous vein or in "idle chatter" you should also make note of the "atrocities" in order that "the real meaning is preserved"? After all, the person you're speaking with may not know about the "real meaning," or may have fallen victim over time to the phenomenon I described earlier. Surely you are willing to take on this personal responsibility to ensure that your own humorous, idle use of the term does not contribute to the diminution of the real meaning.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Would you personally agree, then, that any time you might use the word "Nazi" in this humorous vein or in "idle chatter" you should also make note of the "atrocities" in order that "the real meaning is preserved"? After all, the person you're speaking with may not know about the "real meaning," or may have fallen victim over time to the phenomenon I described earlier.

No... From above:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I mean separately. If the horrors of WWII and the Nazis are discussed then people get it. They don't have to be reminded when using Nazi in idle chatter what the Nazis really did because that would also be discussed in society. There's room for both types of discussion.

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, the problem is more complex than you insist on making it, assumedly to be contrarian ... since for the life of me I can see no other point.

I think you're thinking there's an elephant in the room, which is: "but it offends me". To which I also refer to you the above:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't find the Nazis of WWII funny at all either. Quite the opposite. But in the last 60-70 years the word has taken on other connotations. These other connotations can be used in humorous situations. Try not to confuse the two.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

No... From above:

People, especially Americans, tend to be rather a-historical. It's a function of the fact that Americans as a general rule tend to have little interaction with people from other countries IN those countries. (The abysmal percentage of Americans holding a passport, prior to it becoming a requirement to get into Canada, was an international embarrassment that spoke volumes about this country.)

But we can pretend it won't be a problem.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

People, especially Americans, tend to be rather a-historical. It's a function of the fact that Americans as a general rule tend to have little interaction with people from other countries IN those countries. (The abysmal percentage of Americans holding a passport, prior to it becoming a requirement to get into Canada, was an international embarrassment that spoke volumes about this country.)

But we can pretend it won't be a problem.

Actually it's not a requirement for an American to hold a passport to get into Canada. An American however will require a passport to get back into America from Canada (or any other country).

As far as I’m concerned, I feel that at such a juncture, there’s no point for me to add anything… You don’t agree, Tracy, there’s no way for me to convince you. But I guess I feel a bit sad, for what little it’s worth…

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

As far as I?m concerned, I feel that at such a juncture, there?s no point for me to add anything? You don?t agree, Tracy, there?s no way for me to convince you. But I guess I feel a bit sad, for what little it?s worth?

Well we're just having a discussion. There's no requirement that we both end up agreeing with each other. I feel content, for whatever that's worth.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

Actually it's not a requirement for an American to hold a passport to get into Canada. An American however will require a passport to get back into America from Canada (or any other country).

Thank you for correcting my typing error. I know the rule, and what I wrote imprecise.