vegetariantaxidermy wrote:bus2bondi wrote:vegetariantaxidermy wrote:As for the use of 'one', it does come across as pompous which is a shame because it's so useful, especially in written form, because it ensures that others don't think you are referring specifically to them, which is apt to occur when 'you' is used.
i've just found it (in general) as a term of reference, a point of reference which is pretty much just the same as using the word 'you' although it's a word that reaches beyond the word you because it sort of encapsulates the word 'you' and the word 'everyone' at the same time with it simultaneously being both and simultaneously not being both.
i suppose it just depends upon how its being used, or the intention of the user.
the word misogyny has always seemed pompous to me. when i first came across this word a long time ago i had no idea what it was. after i learned what it was, it almost seemed 'pomp' in it's own way to use the word misogyny.
i've found there is this 'flow' (for lack of a better word) around it.. i'm not saying at all that i am for women haters, etc.. not at all. but the word misogyny, it's always bothered me. if you wrote, for example the word, ontology, that would not bother me. but the word misogyny...
'Misanthropy, philanthropy, pederast, misandry.....I guess they are all 'pompous' then. Perfectly good words with straightforward meanings.
Problems arise when a word like misogyny is over-used, or misused, by radicals with an agenda. It's a shame because a useful word then loses its meaning.
As a matter of fact you have just demonstrated my original point. You don't like the word misogyny because it's 'pompous', yet you are not bothered by the blatantly misogynistic rantings of some of the posters on this forum. Just 'boys being boys' eh?
The point I was TRYING to make about the use of 'you' is that it's a pity it comes across as pompous because it saves the bother of having to tie ONEself into knots explaining to someone that ONE is not referring specifically to the person ONE is speaking to , but to ONEself and others in general.
I've always thought there is a bit of a shortfall or 'missing link' in the English language when these situations come up.
no, i didn't say that. anything ending with 'opy', 'ast', 'andry' is pompous? i don't think that myself.
you wrote, "Problems arise when a word like misogyny is over-used, or misused, by radicals with an agenda. It's a shame because a useful word then loses its meaning."
that seems to be it, but not quite, but maybe so, it's just the thing i noticed about the word misogyny is that its got something going on about it beyond most other words in terms of the word, maybe 'pomp'?
The point I was TRYING to make about the use of 'you' is that it's a pity it comes across as pompous because it saves the bother of having to tie ONEself into knots explaining to someone that ONE is not referring specifically to the person ONE is speaking to , but to ONEself and others in general.
I've always thought there is a bit of a shortfall or 'missing link' in the English language when these situations come up.[/quote]
i understand your point, but i've never met anyone who's ever tied themselves into knots over it. especially 'explaining to someone that one is not referring specifically to the person one is speaking to, but to oneself and others in general.'
As a matter of fact you have just demonstrated my original point. You don't like the word misogyny because it's 'pompous', yet you are not bothered by the blatantly misogynistic rantings of some of the posters on this forum. Just 'boys being boys' eh?
no, i have not just demonstrated your original point.
