Kilt, Skirt, MUG, etc.

[davedove]

I disagree and so does the OED. As the OED defines a "skirt" as a garment for woman, the only kilt fitting within the OED's definition of "skirt" is a woman's kilt.

But the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary says this:

kilt[noun]

Main Entry: kilt
Function: noun
1 : a knee-length pleated skirt usually of tartan worn by men in Scotland and by Scottish regiments in the British armies
2 : a garment that resembles a Scottish kilt

So, people (even scholars) define things differently. I won't offer an opinion on which dictionary is "better", only that there are a variety of definitions. Besides, we all know it's a kilt. If someone else wants to call it a skirt, that's only his closed minded ignorance showing.

[Dreadbelly]

I disagree and so does the OED. As the OED defines a "skirt" as a garment for woman, the only kilt fitting within the OED's definition of "skirt" is a woman's kilt.

A man's kilt is not a skirt. I guess to put it into your parlance, a man's kilt is not a fruit but a vegetable.

Sigh. Very well. Let's bat this ball around.

I guess your dictionary is the only accurate source on this word?

According to my various volumes of lore, skirt is not even an English word. Skyrt. Skyrta. Skort. Skjorta.

I would toss your Oxford English dictionary out the window, as it is completely useless in this instance. English is a bastardised language. It simply doesn't work to well for what we are attempting to define here.

Skyrt. The proper use of the actual word that we desire for this instance. A free-hanging part of an outer garment or undergarment extending from the waist down. A cloth covering that forms the part of a garment below the waist. Also. A one-piece garment extending downward from the waist and not joined between the legs. The hanging part of a long shirt or tunic that extends below the waist. Any part of a great coat or cloak that extends below the waist. A wrap of cloth around the body or torso.

So please, ahem, stop skirting the issue and only reading from source of information that supports your views while you make a lukewarm attempt to discredit others.

Have a pleasant day.

[bubba]

Hey! Don't forget fender skirts!

[lrpddrummie]

Lets get down to brass tacks, no matter what you call it, no matter how you define it, no matter what your reasons are, the simple truth is that we all enjoy wearing it. You can come up with all the witty comebacks you want, the simple truth is that their will be somebody who will make a snide remark or give a funny look. There will always be somebody who will like what you are wearing and want to know more about it. There will always be someone who will ask “the question”. There will always be someone who will try to lift it or sneak a peak. The simple truth is that we will always wear our “…” and enjoy it. I don’t see the sense in getting all roweled up over a piece of clothing; there are bigger things to worry about in this world.

[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.

[jkdesq]

Yes, words have origins in other words and words come from various languages. I believe we can take it as a given that we are all speaking and reading modern English. I doubt few people in the world speak or read Old Norse, so why worry about what "skort" meant to people 700 years ago.

As I said in a previous posting, English is not a prescriptive language. We English speakers, unlike the French and Italian speakers, do not have a committee of Immortals to dictate means of words. Rather, English is a language of convention. English words mean what English speakers think they mean. Word meanings change: what was a "fag" 100 years ago, is not what a "fag" is today. Words can vary regionally: what is a "fag" in the U.K is not the same as a "fag" in North America.

All words have their origin. But origins become meaningless over time -- academically interest perhaps and of some assistance. However, the origin is not dispositive of what the current word means. When I say "test" in modern English, I don't have to be concerned that it came from a word in Latin meaning an earthen pot. When I say macaroni, I don't need to be concerned that it cames from a Greek word for "food made from Barley." We speak English here (where ever "here" is for you) and now.

Apparently, there might be some disagreement amongst dictionary publishers. The OED publishers think that most English speakers believe that "skirts" are a woman's garment. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary's says that "skirts" are "usually" worn by woman (http://www.m-w.com/ check if you care to). I might even suggest that there are regional differences. Perhaps people living in the U.S. are more inclined to the Websters view, people in the U.K. to the OED view. Canadians, one, the other or somewhere in the middle.

Dreadbelly, whether you agree with me or not you have to agree that there is room to disagree. No matter what King Cnute thought a "skort" was, there is no right or wrong answer.

As I said, my "vote" is for the OED view. Take what ever view you want.

[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.

[Dreadbelly]

Yes, words have origins in other words and words come from various languages. I believe we can take it as a given that we are all speaking and reading modern English. I doubt few people in the world speak or read Old Norse, so why worry about what "skort" meant to people 700 years ago.

Dreadbelly, whether you agree with me or not you have to agree that there is room to disagree. No matter what King Cnute thought a "skort" was, there is no right or wrong answer.

As I said, my "vote" is for the OED view. Take what ever view you want.

Since I am on a short leash, I shall do my best to remain polite and civil and gentle natured.

Skyrt, skirt, however you choose to spell it, originated in old Norsk. However, your statement fails to take in to account how the word has survived through the ages and modernised to include other features or characteristics, like any part of a shirt that hangs below the waist. If we followed your OED, my long shirts would belong to my wife from the waist down. My trench coat would also being to my wife from the waist down, as anything "skirt" is defined as a woman's garment according to your chosen definition. And yet the fact remains that the section of my trench coat that hangs below the waist is called a "skirt." If I wore a long tunic, it would only be a man's garment from the waist up, if we followed your single outlook. And it is in these instances that your definition fails. Skirt survived simply because it was an easy cover all description of any sort of cloth that draped or hung below the waist.

My two rupees.

[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.