Kilt, Skirt, MUG, etc.

[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.

[Dreadbelly]

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.

Sorry to keep you waiting. It was never my intention to be silent this long. Had to let things cool off. And now I must keep them cool.

I couldn't resist this thread though, and do hope I haven't crossed any lines and posted to much or made to many inflamatory remarks. But this was just to juicy. This was the most vile sort of bait, one I was powerless to resist.

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

Sorry to keep you waiting. It was never my intention to be silent this long. Had to let things cool off. And now I must keep them cool.

I couldn't resist this thread though, and do hope I haven't crossed any lines and posted to much or made to many inflamatory remarks. But this was just to juicy. This was the most vile sort of bait, one I was powerless to resist.

Dread, check out the Celebrity Faq! You were granted immunity for life! Or until you leave Xmarks, whatever comes first! So post away. Personally I find your posts colorful and knowledgable. I have never seen them as inflammatory or discriminatory. Granted, I haven't been here that long, but first impressions are best impressions!

RJI

[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?

[Shay]

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 the language.

Actually, it's not an official government enforcer, merely an academy that suggest to people what should mean what- like a living dictionary.

According to this wikipedia article:
The Académie is France's official authority on the usages, vocabulary, and grammar of the French language, although its recommendations carry no legal power. Sometimes, even governmental authorities disregard the Académie's rulings.

Just wanted to make that quick note, and to ask...

Can we all agree to disagree? Since there are no laws saying what word is what, and English has no gendered nouns, and the language evolves over time, maybe it's possible that calling a kilt a skirt or saying a kilt is not a skirt are both perfectly reasonable definitions if you feel they are. Semantics is a fun game to play, but to get nasty because someone sees a different shade in our fuzzy language is going a bit far.

[jkdesq]

Shay,

Crap, far afield from Kilts. Two issues with your post: i) yes, decisions may not have the "force of law" but it is still a body that controls the development of French language, internationally. Very few institutions make decisions with the force of law. Without l'Academie, "computer" in French would be "computer". However, because of the Immortals, the word "ordinateur" was created (well, dug up from the depths of old French) so that French did not have to suffer the indignity of imitiating English. ii) l'Academie is not France's official body, as you suggest; it is the French languages official body (ie. international). The decisions of the immortals are just as applicable in Belgium, Canada, Senegal or other members countries of la francophonie as they are in France.

[Dreadbelly]

It's not much about semantics for me. It's more about logic and slippery slope exceptions.

If we make the kilt an exception, that it is not a skirt just because somebody feels strongly about it and says so... Then by that logic, I declare that a sarong is not a skirt either. Just because I say so and I object on the grounds that it bothers me when a sarong is called a skirt. It's just wrong. A sarong is not a skirt, it is a sarong... I assume a contrary position and demand that an exception be made. And you will be hearing from the lava lava committee very very soon about their offense at you calling their garment a "skirt."

See where this leads? Eventual breakdown. Classification and etymology are there for a reason. If one exception is made, then many exceptions follow. Things are what they are for simplicity. If you change these things, for what ever reason, you just muddy the waters and add confusion.

So pretty soon you have things that waddle like a duck, quack like a duck, and float like a duck, but nobody actually calls them ducks. Which is really dumb, if you ask me.

[Rigged]

Words are given special meanings all the time. "Gay", "Black", "Sanitation Engineer", "A Woman's Right To Choose". People need a word or group of words to have a special meaning and by agreement and continuous usage, those words become habits and come to take on the meaning they've been given.

If, in America, skirt = female garment, then a kilt is not a skirt. If skirt had a gender-neutral meaning in American English, then it would probably not be an issue.

Some guys still use the term, "chasing skirts" to mean that they are pursuing women (for sex). So, to some guys, "skirt" is almost synonymous with "woman".

I have no problem correcting people when they seem confused about whether or not I'm wearing a woman's garment.

I'll say, "It's a kilt," because most people know that a kilt is not a woman's skirt.

Also, while a sarong or a lava-lava is a skirt by any dictionary definition, they are not skirts by American clothing standards since skirts are women's clothing and only women wear skirts.

Want proof? Go into any department store and ask for the men's skirt department. There's no such thing.

I wear kilts and sarongs and I own a lava-lava and they're not skirts.