While I’m happy to be writing to you all again, unfortunately it is yet again to discuss how the Progressive understanding of language seeks to break down our basic means for understanding the world around us (Don’t worry, I’m working on a “whitepill” post about language to come out soon). LGBTQNation’s recent article “Does the word ‘bad’ have homophobic roots?” is a prime example of this “woke” linguistics. The article begins with:
“Bad. To those learning English, it’s often the first word taught as the antithesis of ‘good’ … Despite how ubiquitous ‘bad’ is in our vernacular, could the word potentially have it’s roots in Dark Age-equivalents of homophobic slurs? Many etymologists think it can.”
Etymology is the study of individual word-histories. Etymologists are those historical linguists who focus on tracing how the forms and meanings of words and phrases have changed over time. Even though the broader field of historical linguistics is a whole lot more than just etymologies, word-histories are ton of fun. For example, did you know that the English word “bear” is not the original name for the animal? The speakers of the ancestor language of English were scared of invoking the spirit of the Bear while out in the forest, so they referred to the animal as ‘bero ’- “the Brown One.” Many bears are brown (and hairy, ehem), and for people living in the European north who were rightfully afraid of large animals (even Leo is afraid of bears), this makes sense.
Another word that has been popping up in discourse surrounding pronouns lately, “guy” as in “you guys,” has an overtly political history. Guy Fawkes, the (in)famous Catholic saboteur who tried to blow up Parliament with a crap-ton of gunpowder in 1605, was captured, hanged, and then drawn and quartered (LINK) (fun!). From this time onwards, loyal British Protestants have celebrated Guy Fawkes Night on the 5th of November, where they create effigies of Guy Fawkes and light them on fire. So, the male name “Guy” becomes a term for these effigies, which then becomes a term for dudes, which in turn becomes one of the reigning second-person plural informal pronouns.
As the token bi libertarian here at Carpe Forum, it would be remiss of me if I did not point out that the word “gay” didn’t used to mean dudes who like dudes, but originally meant “happy” (to be fair, all you fine fellows are quite fun).
Etymology is great in that it shows us how word meanings (remember my semantic rant from last time?) change over time. However, we should always be wary of the etymological fallacy. The etymological fallacy states that a word’s earlier meaning and/or heritage informs what that word means today. Imagine telling anybody here that that very loaded of terms must mean “a bundle of sticks” because that’s what it originally meant (which, hilariously, ultimately descends from Latin ‘fascis,’ which is where we also get the term “fascist” from). This argument is laughably dumb. There’s a reason we call it a fallacy.
The LGBTQNation article draws on the very tenuous argument that the modern English word “bad” descends from the Old English term ‘bæddel,’ which was a whole lot like that current “bundle” term discussed above. ‘Bæddel’ was the passive (i.e. bottom) member in a homosexual male sex-act. If you were the top, congratulations! You weren’t a ‘bæddel.’ Yes, modern notions of homosexuality rarely match up with how this worked in the past. It was a term that could get you into some real trouble, including having to pay a large fine to the person you said it to or even getting into a duel with the insulted man. It was a real-deal thing to imply that somebody took it up the ass.
In support of this etymology, the article cites Bill Burgwinkle of Cambridge University, a guy who’s written a lot about “queer” troubadours in the south of France, but not at all about ACTUAL etymology/historical linguistics. To be fair, the article does reference the great Germanic linguist Anatoly Liberman of Oxford University, but he has nothing to say about the term ‘bæddel’ itself.
The article does rightly point out that the word “evil” was the normal way of referring to “bad” before the 19th Century. It concludes by saying:
“While this isn’t to say that we should collectively once again revert to using “evil” in place of “bad”, it does provide an interesting example of how prejudice and marginalization, even when taking place centuries ago, can shape our everyday lives to the point where it becomes routine and forgotten.”
All of this from a tenuous etymology of “bad.” This is definitely NOT linguistics. This is quasi-academic trash trying to make you even more anxious about whether you’re using the “approved” terms on a daily basis. Pronouns weren’t enough, so now they’re even coming for basic adjectives such as “bad.” Resist the Current Thingtm! Use language to share your perspective with those around you without fear, and feel free to call this shit for what it is: “bad” linguistics.