June 11, 2007
-
The N-Word and the Dictionary
A friend of mine told me today that she was told that the editors of Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary had finally decided to make a change to the word “n*****” on their online dictionary.
Originally, members of the NAACP wanted the word “n*****” removed from the dictionary. Merriam-Webster refused to take the word out because it was an actual word. Here is the link: Link
Then the NAACP objected to the definition of the word. The current definition that is listed under the word “n*****” is “a black person.” Here is the link to the current definition: Link
The NAACP wanted the definition to be changed to “a racial slur.” The editors of Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary said that the reason that the first definition of the word was “a black person” was because they always had a policy of putting the oldest definition first. So there was a time and a place when the n-word did mean “a black person.”
Should the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary adjust its definition of the n-word to be more sensitive to minorities?
Comments (133)
I believe so. Adjust with culture.
no…thats how it was back in the day
not saying thats cause its in the dictionary you can use that word…. but the 1st defenition is always the oldest one…i can see where they are coming from
Doesn’t it make sense to put the oldest definition NOT first? Doesn’t that make for a more user-friendly dictionary?
I think it should be included as a racial slur. Get with the times.
no. that’s why dictionaries carry multiple meanings for each word. the dictionary is a tool that has an academic purpose, to give definitions for words. simple as that. there’s no other agenda that should be considered.
They should be more PC.
WOw
firstish
The dictionaries I use put obsolete definitions last. The N-word is definitely obsolete in polite company.
I would think that “a black person; commonly considered a racial slur” or something to that effect would be sufficient.
I don’t give a rat’s butt about sensitivities. But it IS a racial slur and should adjust the definition to include that, but not replace.
it says its “usually offensive” even before it says “a black person”
Seriously. People are way too sensitive. Honestly, no matter what the word is, if that’s what it means, that’s what should go in the dictionary. They should put a note that it’s a racial slur, but I mean, the word “f***” offends me, as do a lot of other curse words, but I know what they mean and I’m okay with the meanings being in the dictionary. If dictionaries start being required to be “politically correct” just to avoid offending over-sensitive groups of people who just want to argue, we’re going to end up in a society where truth is a thing of the past. 1984, anyone?
Hell no. They should suck it up, because now I see white people being treated worse these days for a racial slur than black people. They give the word power, ignore it IT LOSES ITS POWER!!! I wish people would understand that.
Wait, it already says “usually offensive”. Was this already like this or is this their change?
I clicked the link, it says “usually offensive …a black person.”
Yes.
Not saying it is just giving the word power.
It already says “usually offensive”. Just how sensitive do they have to be here?
I supposed they’re supposed to change it to “worst word that any human being can ever, ever say” just so no one will go “waaa!” about it?
If they have “usually offensive” or “derogatory” in the definition, I don’t see why they should have to do more.
Most reasonably good dictionaries have abandoned the oldest-definition-first practice, opting to make the information immediately sought — the current definition of the word — more readily accessible by placing it first. If you look at a thesaurus, the most obscure synonyms are found at the end of the list; the same concept should apply to an efficient dictionary.
That is ridiculous in my opinion. Really.
I don’t care how hard you try and what group you belong to, you cannot rewrite history. Or in this case, the dictionary.
rofl… “but it now ranks as perhaps the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English. Its use by and among blacks is not always intended or taken as offensive…”
they should note that it can be offensive and/or a racial slur
No
No. This is just BS. Doesn’t the NAACP have better things to do than argue about a word?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1DUygA1Vns
not 100% on topic, but its what I thought of when I first read this
I say change it.
no i dont think so.
I wonder about your commenters sometimes… you can’t rewrite the dictionary?? It’s done all the time.
However, to answer your question, I think that the M-W people did a good job of explaining the inflammatory and degrading nature of the word. For purposes of education and understanding, I don’t think slurs should be dropped from the dictionary.
Yes, I think so. But the older one should still be prominent.
Nah. If it were the Oxford Dictionary, this wouldn’t be a problem.
I’m not a minority. I don’t have a full understanding of what is offensive.
I’m not sure about this one.
NO! Oldest definition comes first. I’m sure that “racial slur or epithet” is there. Enough already with the black agenda!
They have the word “Fuck” in there, don’t they? If they can print profanity, why censor racial slurs? You can offend cute little old ladies in dresses, but you can’t offend black people who probably don’t mind. Wtf.
They would NEVER change a word to be sensitive to white people. You know, I see more white prejudice then anything else. Yes, years & years ago, it was the other races being put down, but now, whites are the ones who always get bitched about. They can just stuff it.
They could adjust it, but keep the older definition (and note that it’s an older definition that is no longer used).
i don’t see why they don’t just include both definitions. after all, the majority of words in the dictionary have several meanings attached to them. merriam-webster could be consistent by providing the older definition first, and then adding the part about the racial slur as a second definition. everyone wins.
yes! i don’t want my kids to look the word up and think its ok to call someone that.
“mostly harmless”
I found the Miriam webster online dictionary to have handled the word is a very clinical manner.
We all know that too much idle time can wreak havoc. Could the naacp have too much time on it’s hands?
They should put both definitions in. Or I like ChrisRusso’s idea.
and since when do buisness people and high class bums cared about what the people said.
lol – I wonder if “cracker” is listed as “a white person.”
They should include all definitions of the word. That’s what dictionaries do, especially when the word has more than one meaning.
If the culture to which it is referring uses it to regard its own, it can’t be considered a racial slur.
Sure. But i don’t think it will do any good. Its not like the ignorant people that use that word read the dictionary anyway.
I would think that “a black person; commonly considered a racial slur” or something to that effect would be sufficient.
<LI class=itemtimestamp>6/11/2007 1:13 PM
<LI class=itemsubmitter>Kaliful82 (message)
AND they could add in “A person originating in Niger”
A black lady told my uncles gf that she was a nigger from Niger and she (the gf) freaked out because the n-word is a bad thing..
I didn’t read any other comments.. but personally..
It’s a word with a definition. Historically.
People made it a slur. I don’t say it or allow my children to, because now it is viewed as a racial slur and disrespectful…
but…
I don’t think it should be removed.
Yes they should adjust the meaning. Words do change. This word when uttered sometimes IS a slur, the definition should reflect it. In the generation before it was sometimes used as a slur as well.
It should say, “A racial slur against a black person.”
And did they change the word, “cracker” to “A racial slur against a white person?”
They define “The N-word” the same way they define all offensive slurs. It says “usually offensive” before it even says “a black person” so I would think it’s common sense to read that and understand that it’s a slur. I don’t think it has to be changed since it’s very obvious already that it’s an offensive word.
Dictionary.com does have a huge introductory paragraph before their definition of the word calling it “probably the most offensive word in English”.
Nigger is used for black people, like shit is for crap.
If its in the dictionary it needs to be defined for what its used for. If people get upset, don’t look up the word nigger.
No,
I actually looked it up and it pretty much explains it well. Then for fun, I looked up cracker and it did have it as a slur as one of the definitions!
“5 ausually disparaging : a poor usually Southern white bcapitalized : a native or resident of Florida or Georgia — used as a nickname”
As long as they note that it is a racial slur, it should be okay. As someone who uses dictionaries for other languages, I personally would prefer if they mentioned up front that it’s a racial slur because someone who speaks English as a second language may not realize that it’s ordered oldest meaning first.
Added as a definition ok. Replace the meaning would degrade the history of the word.
Think about it for a moment…
I have been called that word by good friends who were black and they were calling me ‘nigger’ as a compliment. I have no qualm with a dictionary listing its current definition with a historical context…
Merriam-Webster should just offer the definitions that apply. 1. A black person 2.A racial slur 3. One black man’s term of endearment to another i.e. my nigger 4. An excuse to do violence on whitey i.e. He called me a nigger! 5. A servant.
Merriam-Webster should just offer the definitions that apply. 1. A black person 2.A racial slur 3. One black man’s term of endearment to another i.e. my nigger 4. An excuse to do violence on whitey i.e. He called me a nigger! 5. A servant.
For heaven’s sake, they already have the definitions tagged as “usually offensive” and have a usage note at the end. I imagine similar measures are taken with other offensive words.
It should be noted that it’s a racial slur…
And why am i getting this news from you and not al sharpton?
If they want to keep the oldest definition first, they could mark it as “archaic”, and add “now considered offensive”.
i dont care much about the sensitivity thing… but to make such a short sloppy definition is crazy… because if it ONLY meant that then sure… but it doesnt… to have it in there as that is one thing… but to have only a black person as the definition… thats ridiculous because in todays society there are certain things certain black ppl do that make other ppl consider them that… and if it wants to be correct than it would list that along with a description AND state that its a racial slur and commonly offensive…
HELL NO!!!
tell the NAACP to get a grip and go do something worth doing- like NOT trying to dismantle the English language- it’s already falling to pieces… American grammar and spelling is terrible these days!
actually, if they were to stop and think about it for a second, Webster’s has it right by marking the word as offensive therefore informing the reader that the word ought not to be used in polite company or at all, while still informing the reader what it means.. Webster’s is doing its job, people need to get a life
They attempted to explain it well enough and I give them credit for that, but yes, I do think they need to change it. Maybe make that part of the explanation rather than the actual definition itself. Seems a little bit harsh.
it should be something like… “1 the common name for a black person in 1800′s 2, racial slur 3, common hood speek.
Nigga please.
no, they shouldn’t do it
Only if they agree to give the same treatment to all other slurs, racial or otherwise.
Does this mean that we should remove the words “God”, and “illegal” from the dictionary as well?
the nigger association for the advancement of colored people needs to back off
The fact of the matter is, “nigger” is a MISPRONUCIATION of “niger”. Niger means black. The color.
I think that it was always a Racial Slur,that was a poor definition written by white folk who used it as such.
i say the definition should read “a term used for a black person, now a racial slur.” compromise.
Yeah. “A racial slur for a person of African-American descent” or something like that. I think they should at least add an additional definition.
What else is that word used in refrence to? Its a racial slur (now)…but its used in refrence to a black person so why wouldnt that be in the dictionary? NAACP needs to get over themselves sometimes.
the nigger association for the advancement of colored people needs to back off
<LI class=itemtimestamp>6/11/2007 4:02 PM
<LI class=itemsubmitter>PSUnited1 (message)
Are you serious?!
hell no. Just define the bloody thing, Dictionaries shouldn’t have to be PC.
hell no. Just define the bloody thing, Dictionaries shouldn’t have to be PC.
I agree with another_evil_person.
And suck it up people. If you go that far, we will have to change every little thing. And that is a BOOK. For everyones use. How is it okay for Blacks to call each other NIGGERS (AHHH-I SAID IT.) yet they take offense if anyone of another race says it. It constantly happened in my school. Once a white boy called a black guy (who constantly greeted other blacks by saying ‘Hey Nigga’) nigger because he thought he should (just to get along) the black punched the white guy and then went with his friends to complain about whites. And my friend said ‘That guy is racist.’ And I noticed that was true.
Notice a pattern?
No.
It gets tiring, sometimes, of always adjusting things to the ‘sensitive minorities’
Now, I would have to agree that they need to include all definitions of the word. Not just the oldest first.
why not?…they should just put both definitions…
Thats the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Now we’re trying to PC the DEFINITIONS of words.
how about some of the oldies but goodies? C-NT; F-CK; CH–K; SP-K….seriously. The words mean what they mean…and its not always nice.
I say stick with policy and list the oldest first followed by the newer. I would however suggest somehow emphasizing that the second, or whatever, definition is the preferred.
I think we should organize a mass mailing of hate mail to the NAACP.
Wow, I can’t believe some of these comments. Would you all like to board a time machine headed for the 1930′s? Because it sure sounds like you do.
Yes.
If the word has multiple meanings or implications, then the dictionary should give them. The more controversy there is over a word, trhe more justification there is to give extended commentaries.
the n-word has always been a “racial slur” – the correct definition would be “a derogatory term used to describe a black person,” or something to that effect. maybe merriam webster needs to look at itself and realize that “ass,” or “sweet,” doesn’t mean the same thing as it did before, either.
Nah nigga
No. Not to be more sensitive. BUT… it has become a racial slur and the definition should reflect what is linguistically true in our society.
Well, if someone from Mars came and read the dictionary in order to learn our language and then ran around calling every black person he saw a n*****, we’d have a problem.
It should perhaps be noted that it is a racial slur, as well as a slang term. Doesn’t the Websta do that with other words?
hmmmm… it should have “a derogatory word for an african-american or person of color”
Daniel (doubledb)
How about “means ‘a black person’ and is used as a racial slur”?
When is it not used as a slur? Seriously, they need to change the definition.
No.
Adding a SECOND definition to the dictionary would be another thing, however.
Yes. How about just changing it altogether to “a racial slur referring to a black person”?
Yes.
I guess both should be in there
They didn’t do it for “faggot”.
More sensitive to minorities…
No, it shouldn’t be changed. What will rappers call each other if it was deleted or edited!?
-David
No
Does anyone care? Are they going to go back and change all derogatory words to be more PC? If not, then No. Although I do agree with lostinlimerence that most dictionaries do put the older less pertinent information last.
I think that they can explain that it was an old meaning of the word, but shouldn’t change it. People are too PC nowadays. I can’t stand it.
No…
Both definitions should be there – in the order that matches the rest of the dictionaries layout.
The actual definition is “an uneducated person”. The ‘N-word’ was used as slang [derogatory at best] for Negro. I think it should go in the dictionary as both “an uneducated person”, and whatever it’s used as to-day.
–Emilie.
They shouldn’t be putting the oldest meaning first if it is no longer the primary meaning of the word. This has more to do with making the dictionary efficient than with political correctness.
The oldest definition of that word is something that is ignorant.
I swear, there is always something right?
It should be defined as a racial slur used to describe black people. It should be defined as simply that.
I don’t understand wanting it removed from the dictionary, yet many of my close friends who are black use the word themselves toward one another. THIS I do NOT understand….
I find it to be a most offensive word… no matter how it’s used, or whom it’s used by.
Disgusting…
justsayin…
not if the rules were in place before the complaint.
Doesn’t the n word ACTUALLY mean “stupid, ignorant person”? Notice, that “black” is not in there AT ALL. So I think that it should be in there, because the slave drivers were the ones that made it into a racial thing, so in all reality, it just means that you’re calling someone stupid.
Check out DoCircle.com =)
definately
i’m married to a black man, and just gave birth to a biracial child. as horrible as racism and that word are they exist and to remove a word from the dictionary is retarded. to erase history is just encouraging it to repeat itself, because obviously we haven’t learned our lesson.
i do think that a compromise of both definitions would be effective. such as, “a racial slur generally reffering to black person.“
The original definition should not be removed at all. We should have that included to let future generations know where the word comes from and what it once ment. Now a days, it’s more of a racial slur than anything else and should’ve been defined as one a long time ago.
If they include both- past and present defininitions, no problem
That’s a tough one. It’s hard to disagree with the NAACP on this, because it is an offensive word, but again, Merriam-Webster has always put the oldest definition first, so I think as long as the words “a racial slur” are in one of the definitions, I don’t have a problem with it. But that’s just me.
On the UK’s big brother, a contestant called Emily Parr was just thrown out because she said n***** to a black contestant called Charley Uchea. However, Charley has ALSO said n***** but this is ALLOWED! I have also heard this word used by a lot of black comedians and in movies, so why is a black person allowed to call a black person a n***** but when a white person does it’s racist?
This is double standards. I absolutely deplore the use of racist language and wish it could be wiped out completely, but when language is acceptable use ‘inside’ a community, then people from ‘outside’ the community will copy!
Its fine. Its important to keep older definitions, especially for people who are doing word entomology research.
I think the “new” definition is good. While maintaining the original sense of the word, the folks at Webster still conveyed its contemporary sense. And that’s the purpose of a dictionary, I think.
I’m not sure that it is the most repulsive slur in the language. Well, at least not to people who aren’t black.
That’s a big no.
No. Definately No! You can’t change dictionary definitions just because you think the definition of the word is offensive. There is a reason why we don’t say the n-word…because it is offensive. Obviously!
i think it is fine. i mean next to it put racial slur.
It already conveys that it’s offensive. Get over it. Agendas don’t belong in the dictionary (except under “A” and only in one spot).
What is the big deal?? It IS a real word and people still use it, even if it is considered a racial slur… What about racial slurs towards whites?? Do we have any “special” organization that protects our rights?? I think NOT. Get over it.
so just add racial slur meaning… and get on with it.
No! There’s too much changing to make things politically correct and watch out for people’s feelings.
I agree with Jiffipop. The dictionary has no other agenda other than to give the various meanings of a word, including it’s origin. It’s an informative book, not a political tool.
Merriam-Webster is a private company. They don’t have to do anything a political organization wants them to.
ok.. let’s try this again….(computer froze in the middle of my comment)
i say no because if M-W adjusted the definition of that word to show sensitivity, then would they not have to do it for the entire English lexicon?
i mean really… any word could be offensive to anybody depending on the intent of the use of the word…. which is exacty why the n word became offensive in the first place…. because of the hurtful intent/maliciousness of people who used it….
yeah that word is part of history and the past but it is also part of the present because people still use it…. i agree with the person who said that just because it’s in the dictionary doesn’t mean that it has to be said or used… the present definition is just a reflection of the culture…. because it has been associated with being a racial slur toward Black people for so long, of course that would be the definition that would be listed…. makes sense to me… besides, if we look at the etymology.. that’s pretty explanatory.
i did read the third definition listed and that one oaralleled the way Tidwell used the word in his book Bayou Farewell when he described the white people who just happened to be the “minority” among the Cajun culture discussed in that book.
~~~
i really don’t know if that made any sense to you because i feel like i was just rambling and writing in my usual stream of conscious… so that’s my 2 cents worth
that’s ridiculous.
English is a constantly-changing and evolving language. putting archaic terms is backwards.
If they adjust anything at all, they should include the full definition from meaning “a black person” to “a racial slur” and including cultural references as it being a figure of speech in the hip-hop culture (songs, greetings amongst themselves, etc). Dropping the original meaning of the word will eventually make it lost in history tomes. It’s exactly what Germany is trying to do with the Nazis. It may not be nice to read about, but it’s something we *need* to know, so the same mistakes are not repeated.
no, it’s what the word means, regardless of whether they want it to sound nice or not.
They should keep it in the dictionary. However, they should also write that it is considered offensive.