Kilt, Skirt, MUG, etc.

[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.

[Riverkilt]

Boy, some thread!

No matter what my kilts are called, in what language, the best deal is that if the kilt fashion boom keeps rolling as strong as it has been it won't be too long before those folks our "detectors" find that tease, ridicule, and mock us will be buying and wearing kilts themselves - probably from a combination of peer pressure and common sense.

Yesterday, I'm walking in downtown Flagstaff, AZ wearing my tan UK Survival for a long road trip. Guy driving by hollars out his window very slowly so he's sure to be understood, "Nice Utilikilt!" Gave him the thumbs up.

Now, I submit, if there are men in rural towns like Flagstaff, Arizona that recognize Utilikilts by brand name, the kilt revolution is well underway.

Today was more fun at the conference in Prescott, Arizona. A county public defender, a lady about six feet tall and gorgeous, made it a point to say, "I love your kilt" with a very seductive smile. Was wearing my hand sewn traditional Macdonald Lord of the Isles Hunting from Kathy's Kilts with my Freelander Sporran.

For all the stupid folks there are moments like these that more than offset the fools.

Ron

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

....Yesterday, I'm walking in downtown Flagstaff, AZ wearing my tan UK Survival for a long road trip. Guy driving by hollars out his window very slowly so he's sure to be understood, "Nice Utilikilt!" Gave him the thumbs up.

Now, I submit, if there are men in rural towns like Flagstaff, Arizona that recognize Utilikilts by brand name, the kilt revolution is well underway.

Ron, that is outstanding! Congrats on educating your corner of the world and getting support and recognition.

[kiltedpride]

Ron, that is outstanding! Congrats on educating your corner of the world and getting support and recognition.

Yes that perhaps suggests that guys wearing Utilikits should call them that and be proud to call them by the brand.

[Kilted_John]

<SNIP>

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.

AFLAC!!!

:mrgreen:

teehee

[Riverkilt]

"Half of all kilts are 30% skirt."

Yogi Berra ( I think...?)



Ron

[jkdesq]

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.

Well, duck/drake, chicken/rooster? hmmmmm. Something that walks like a cow, mooes like a cow and grazes like a cow and is not a cow is of course a bull. A kilt can be very skirtlike and still not be a skirt. After all, I hope you agree that there are plenty of similarities and plenty of differences between a kilt and a skirt (ie. a woman's garment) just like there are similarities and difference between a cow and a bull.

"Skirt" is to "kilt", as "cow" is to "bull". Unfortunately, we have no overarching general word for these garments that would line up with "bovine". One possible theory.

Language is not science. Classifications? As far as I know, the only classifications of words are noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, etc. other than that, we have alphabetical order. If there is some chart of the categories of words and a map to how they are subdivided, I would love to see it.

Still the question why. I know why I don't want people to view kilts as a kind of skirt. Why do you care so much to prove that they are? I am seriously curious why you care so much to prove this.