Reply to thread

I simply cannot look at a word and feel a connection just because of a heavily used homonymic definition.   The amount of a word's specific definition's  use in contemporary society cannot be used to gauge another definitions intent.  That's splicing apples with oranges.   I know exactly what someone referring to something in the "That's so gay,"  context means.   And I see no correlation.  The definitions have been split they no longer are of the same stock.  At this point in the word's etymological evolution it has become two different words whose only link is in being homonyms.  I've many gay friends and I can safely say that I hear from them in appx. the same frequency use the "that's so gay," context without even noticing.  I feel safe in this subject matter since this was a discussion I had on IRC with a couple gay friends, that I brought up after one of them called a major software company gay for filing some frivolous IP lawsuits.   The results were humorous as he said he didn't even make the connection when saying it.  So perhaps my bias lays with that one situation.  I try to remain objective and use those points as my main panel in arguing this.   I believe the rift lays mainly with the age group in which people reside in, older people tend to frown on this usage where as younger generations tend to delineate them in to their bipartite definitions.  Those who were not exposed to the two usages of the words on a regular basis tend to associate the word "Gay" with homosexuality and have trouble meshing the newer definition into their language core.  This would make for an interesting linguistics study I think.  

robf;