Kilt, Skirt, MUG, etc.

[Freedomlover]

Kilt/skirt
shirt/blouse
trousers/slacks
underwear/panties
bro or manzier/bra (ok that's from Seinfeld)

Many articles of clothing have a "boys name" and a "girls name". Kilts are no more "skirts for men" than shirts are "blouses for men".

A kilt is not a "skirt for men"? Then why does the dictionary definition say it is?

Re: shirt/blouse Both terms apply equally to male and female garments.

Re: trousers/slacks Both terms apply equally to male and female garments.

With the partial exception of underwear (briefs/boxers are worn by both sexes), I think that only gender specific articles of clothing can be safely assigned exclusively to one sex or the other. Example: jockstrap=male, brassier=female.

Not looking to stir anyone up. Just giving my opinion.

[jkdesq]

A kilt is not a "skirt for men"? Then why does the dictionary definition say it is?

My dictionary -- Oxford English Dictionary (the only English dictionary that really matters--well with the exception of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary) -- defines a "kilt" as a "skirtlike garment". There is a difference between being a "skirt" and being "skirtlike".

Also the OED defines "skirt" as meaning "a woman's outer garment haging from the waist". I see little room in this definition to include a man's kilt.

Men that wear blouses? Who knew. Looking the word "blouse" up in the OED, this suggestion is confirmed. According to the OED a blouse can be 1 "a woman's loose, usu. lighweight, upper garment, usu. buttoned and collared. b the upper part of a soldier's or airman's battledress. 2 a workman's or peasant's loose linen or cotton garment, usu. belted at the waist". It seems to me the uses of "blouse" to describe garments for men are very specific. I don't think I wear a blouse when I wear a suit and tie.

Perhaps I didn't make my point very well. I was trying to suggest that there are alot of things that are more or less the same, but are known by different names depending on cultural context. Lines are blurry. Where is the line that separates a boat from a ship? Is a wine glass a "cup"? The words we use derive their value from the shared meaning that individuals in a culture attribute to them. Language is a social construct. If you scratch to deeply at the nomenclature of things, the exercise becomes meaningless.

English has a vocabulary that arises from convention. We don't have a prescribed language like French and Italian speakers. It is the meaning understood by the typical English speaker that is most important. If someone says "skirt" to me, I think of a garment intended for women. If someone says "kilt" I think of a garment for men or women. There is no situation where I would hear the word "skirt" and think of a garment intended for a man.

The word "skirt" is extremely feminine and very closely associated with women. The OED gives one meaning of the word "skirt" as a slang term for "a woman regarded as an object of sexual desire". I don't think a word can get any more feminine than that. I think you should be more willing to call your briefs "panties" (when you wear them) than call your kilt a "skirt".

My vote is that we should discourage any use of the word "skirt" to describe a kilt.

[Freedomlover]

My dictionary -- Oxford English Dictionary (the only English dictionary that really matters--well with the exception of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary) -- defines a "kilt" as a "skirtlike garment". There is a difference between being a "skirt" and being "skirtlike".

That's odd. The OED found here: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/kilt?view=uk clearly defines a kilt as a SKIRT. Not skirtlike.

Perhaps I didn't make my point very well. I was trying to suggest that there are alot of things that are more or less the same, but are known by different names depending on cultural context. Lines are blurry.

Sure, no problem there.

Where is the line that separates a boat from a ship?

The difference is that (with a couple notable exceptions) 'boats' are carried on 'ships'.

If you scratch to deeply at the nomenclature of things, the exercise becomes meaningless.
English has a vocabulary that arises from convention. We don't have a prescribed language like French and Italian speakers. It is the meaning understood by the typical English speaker that is most important.

I respectfully disagree. While it is quite true that cultural cannotations are often what matters most to people, the fact remains that words mean things. That's why we have them.

If someone says "skirt" to me, I think of a garment intended for women.

Sure. Who wouldn't? But that does not change the fact that a kilt is, by definition, a skirt. Here in America we suffer from constant misuse, abuse and outright obtuse usages of the language. Ignorance is curable. I see it as my job to educate strangers who refer to my kilt by its other name: a skirt.

There is no situation where I would hear the word "skirt" and think of a garment intended for a man.

I understand that. But again I point out that that reaction is due to culture, not to proper English usage.

I think you should be more willing to call your briefs "panties" (when you wear them) than call your kilt a "skirt".

I think you may have misunderstood me. I never refer to my kilts as skirts, even though they are. And the reasons I don't are exactly the same as yours. But knowing the proper definitions allows me to point out to the wise guy that what he may intend as a snide comment can not possibly be offensive because it is factual. It is as water off a duck's back to me as it should be to all kilt wearers.

My vote is that we should discourage any use of the word "skirt" to describe a kilt.

Well, you can lobby to change the language if you like. But even if the official definition is altered common usage will not be.

[Dreadbelly]

There is no situation where I would hear the word "skirt" and think of a garment intended for a man.

I could. Sarong. Lava lava. Sulu. Fustanella. Kikoi. All are skirts. All are worn by men. Many are worn by very manly men from warrior cultures, all of whom could probably rip you a new one for calling them skirt wearing sissies.

My two pesos.

[jkdesq]

Well, you can lobby to change the language if you like. But even if the official definition is altered common usage will not be.

Well, I can't explain why the Compact OED online looks more like Websters than the Concise OED I have on my desk. Oh well.

There is no official definition of English words. That's the entire point. English is a language of convention. English words mean what English speakers believe the word to mean. We have no Committee of Immortals. English Dictionary writers try to describe, not prescribe, the meanings.

[Freedomlover]

There is no official definition of English words. That's the entire point. English is a language of convention.

Try telling your English composition teacher that words do not have actual definitions. Without them language is meaningless.

English words mean what English speakers believe the word to mean.

Again, I respectfully disagree. That is relativism with such vengence that, if true, it would render communication impossible.

We have no Committee of Immortals. English Dictionary writers try to describe, not prescribe, the meanings.

Dictionary editors, fully understanding that usages do change over time, try to publish the most current accepted usage. And the most accepted common usage of 'kilt' is that it is a man's skirt.

It is an individual problem, not a problem of language.

[Rigged]

There are certain words that trigger images and emotions in people that have little to do with their strict dictionary definitions.

I would argue that "skirt" is one of those words.

[Freedomlover]

There are certain words that trigger images and emotions in people that have little to do with their strict dictionary definitions.

I would argue that "skirt" is one of those words.

Yes, and I have stipulated it. All I am trying to point out is that we, as kilt wearers, are well advised to be prepared to point out the cultural differences, and that current English usage exposes mistaken impressions.

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

Wow, miss a couple of hours of posts at a critical time, and the world explodes!

This is what I'm talking about! This is the kind of intense discussion I expected my original post to create. I was actually disappointed when it did not. I agree with Rigged that all of these words have connotative meanings with far more emotional impact than their dictionary meanings. I myself have had to determine my own reaction to them in the few weeks since I began wearing a kilt, or skirt, or MUG if you prefer. For me, I have had to come to the conclusion that to an external observer, say an alien from outer space, they would call all of the garments described as a skirt, and many more, by the same term, namely "grinklecod" based on their physical characteristics. I have also come to the conclusion that while some of the "clothing items" offered by CitySkirt and MenInTime and others may not be my taste, they are really not any different than a kilt. And I would actually probably rather wear some of their garments that are in darker more subdued colors than a traditional kilt in Royal Stewart or Irish National. Having come to the decision to wear a "kilt", I have determined that I am open to considering the wearing of any "legless" garment. We are all at the forefront of a fashion movement. Who can tell what we might decide is "acceptable" to us in 5 years. From my point of view, the risk and public opinion hurdles in going from pants to a kilt are much greater than the ones facing somebody going from a tartan to a solid color UK, or possible a leather kilt/skirt that might come somewhat below the knee or even be similar to a mini-skirt. Just as everyone has their own preference in trousers (some like khakis, some like pinstripes, some like ones with pleats in the front for better fit, some like jeans, etc.), we will each have our own personal preferences, and strong opinions, about these garments we have chosen to wear.

Rock on and get the debate going! We have actually drawn Dread out of his silence! Now that is an accomplishment.

[jkdesq]

Try telling your English composition teacher that words do not have actual definitions. Without them language is meaningless.

Dread,

I think you still fail to understand that no one "decides" what English words mean. In French and Italian, it is different. These other languages have a group of people who decide what each French and each Italian word means. The French group is called the Immortals. These people "prescribe" (I'd use italics for emphasis if they were available) the language.

In English, we have no such group. The language evolves by the common usage. The people who create the OED or Websters dictionary try to take a snap shot of the common usage. These people "describe", not "prescribe", the language. There is a good explanation of this difference between English and French in Simon Winchester's book "the Meaning of Everything: the Story of the Oxford English Dictionary".

Previously, you suggested that I "lobby" to try to have the definition of "skirt" changed. If you believe that there is an authority that decides the official meaning of English words, could you tell who these people are? Not likely, because there is not anyone. If this evolutionary aspect of English is not taught in universities in the U.S., I wonder what they are teaching you folks!

So we are stuck with it: one dictionary (OED) that would strongly suggests that a kilt is not a skirt because it defines "skirt" as a garment for woman and one (Websters) that would suggest that a kilt is a skirt. There is room for argument and, despite your discomfort with it, alot of room for something you called "relativism". Think what you want. However, to me a kilt is definitely not a skirt and I have OED authority (albeit not authority of English Immortals) to back me up.

Now, I can understand me taking my position strongly (ie. that I don't wish for people to think kilts are a woman's garment). Why Dread, Freedomlover etc. are you guys feel so strongly to argue against me? Why to you feel so strongly that a kilt is indeed a skirt?