Shrug. Bare assertion. For evidence that it's not, see the article. Respond if you can. — Baden

Look back at that article. It is itself merely opinion. If I missed where there is any academic weight at all to that article, could you point it out?

I'm mixed-race. I've had access to primary historical sources for understanding how the words were used on both sides(at least in the 20th Century). The n-word is a slurring of negro. It just meant black. It was succeeded by "colored," which was succeeded by "black," which was supposed to be succeeded by "African American," but that one had too many syllables. Only really uptight white people use that one.

The weight of my assessment is my qualifications as a translator of words used in my own language community. So, yes, there's bareness to my assertions about it.

The article goes on to argue that "nigga" is actually becoming a pronoun rather than a noun and there's data to support that, but that's less relevant to the issue being discussed in this thread. — Baden

The reason a white person wouldn't use the omitted R version of the word is because it would sound like mockery, assuming you have a white person who wasn't raised speaking a black dialect. It'd be like me walking around your home town and telling everyone "top 'o the mornin' to ya'" in my best Irish accent. The truncation of the last consonant is characteristic of certain black dialects, and it would cause problems for me to speak that way in most contexts. The same holds true if you came down here (and please don't) and decided you wanted to speak like a southerner. They'd take it as an attempt to show them how stupid you thought they were.

Look back at that article. It is itself merely opinion. If I missed where there is any academic weight at all to that article, could you point it out? — frank

So this, just to give a small sample:

"What's the evidence for pronoun status?

a nigga and my nigga are phonologically reduced. That is, there is a clear difference in pronunciation between the pronoun forms and the terms meaning "a person" and "my friend." To this end, we tend to use anigga and manigga, pronounced /ənɪgə/ and /mənɪgə/ (we leave the original spacing when quoting tweets, though).
No other words can intervene while still retaining the first person meaning. "A friendly nigga said hello" does not mean "I said hello," whereas "anigga said hello" can. The first means that some friendly guy said hello, but it wasn't the speaker.
anigga binds anaphors. No, that's not some kind of Greek fetish; Anaphors are words like "myself" "himself," "herself," etc. Binding in this case refers to which anaphors show up with the word. anigga patterns with the first person words, whereas imposters do not. For almost everyone "daddy is going to buy myself an ice cream" is either ungrammatical or sounds like daddy got lost in the middle of his sentence. anigga, on the other hand, is often used with myself, as in "anigga proud of myself."
Other pronouns refer back to anigga. That is, "you read all a nigga's tweets but you still don't know me."
Verbs are conjugated first person, not third person, with anigga. This is totally ungrammatical with imposters, and totally normal for actual pronouns. Example:
"Finna make myself dinner. a nigga haven't eaten all day." Compare that to "Daddy haven't eaten all day; he's going to make myself dinner." Really, really, abysmally bad.

anigga can be used in certain conditions that imposters - like "a brotha" - cannot. For instance, you can say "anigga arrived," with first person meaning, but the only interpretation available for "a brotha arrived" is third person. It's for this reason that we cannot simply substitute the much-less-likely-to-offend "a brotha" in our discussion of these terms.

That's basically it. In every conceivable grammatical test, anigga patterns with actual pronouns and not with imposters."

in your world is equivalent to this:

Lol. Its the same word, Baden. — frank

And that is evidence not only that it's a different word but that it's becoming a different word class. I also linked to the full pdf study too. So, you're not even being serious.

I'm mixed-race. — frank

It doesn't matter what race either of us is or isn't. I'm Irish but that doesn't make me right about any particular claim I make about Ireland or Irish English etc. And it's a linguistic issue by definition.

The n-word is a slurring of negro. It just meant black. It was succeeded by "colored," which was succeeded by "black," which was supposed to be succeeded by "African American," but that one had too many syllables. — frank

Again, if this is all you have, you have nothing. Sorry.

I remember being taught at primary school ( UK - a couple of several decades ago ) that the proper word to use was 'negroe'. — Amity

My father used to call called black people "colored," which was actually an official designation for a time period. You checked off the box on government forms indicating whether you were white or colored. Use of the term colored now makes you sound painfully ignorant, but not necessary racist, but likely holding less than progressive views.

The same holds true if you came down here (and please don't) and decided you wanted to speak like a southerner. They'd take it as an attempt to show them how stupid you thought they were. — Hanover

:zip:

How does any of that support your claim?

I'm telling you: the way blacks use the word is in many cases exactly the same way whites once used it. If you were thinking that blacks always drop the r at the end, you're wrong. So zero in on that fact and look again at the argument you're trying to counter: that since blacks use it, whites should be able to use it.

The argument you presented is a ridiculous solution to the white quest to use it anyway. That quest needs no solution. It's just a handful of white people being laughable. If they aren't actually trying to get a laugh, they're just stupid.

How does any of that support your claim? — frank

I'm supporting the linguistic argument that they're different words, which is what the above focuses on too in presenting syntactic disparities of usage evident of a shifting of word class. I'm not arguing against your personal experience of using the word.

(I'm not even saying it's beyond debate that they're different words, only that it's a linguistic issue and can only be sorted out by looking at how they behave not by how people think they behave.)

I'm telling you: the way blacks use the word is in many cases exactly the same way whites once used it. If you were thinking that blacks always drop the r at the end, you're wrong. So zero in on that fact and look again at the argument you're trying to counter: that since blacks use it, whites should be able to use it.

The argument you presented is a ridiculous solution to the white quest to use it anyway. That quest needs no solution. It's just a handful of white people being laughable. If they aren't actually trying to get a laugh, they're just stupid. — frank

My hope is that understanding some of the linguistic facts might help clear up some of the confusion and help white people stop being stupid about it. But, yes, maybe that is a forlorn hope.

Get the popcorn — jamalrob

Not a hope. I'm going to be nice and then disappear and do some actual work so I can pay the rent this month. :strong:

I'm supporting the linguistic argument that they're different words, which is what the above focuses on too in presenting syntactic disparities of usage evident of a shifting of word class. I'm not arguing against your personal experience of using the word. — Baden

Fine. Apparently I need to say it again: in many cases, the black usage is the same as the historic white usage. It's very clearly the same word.

My hope is that understanding some of the linguistic facts might help clear up some of the confusion and help white people stop being stupid about it. — Baden

It's not all white people. It's just a tiny handful being silly.

Fine. Apparently I need to say it again: in many cases, the black usage is the same as the historic white usage. It's very clearly the same word. — frank

See my edit above:

(I'm not even saying it's beyond debate that they're different words, only that it's a linguistic issue and can only be sorted out by looking at how they behave not by how people think they behave.) — Baden

At this point, I think we can agree to disagree. It's not the main focus of the discussion for sure.

You checked off the box on government forms indicating whether you were white or colored. Use of the term colored now makes you sound painfully ignorant, but not necessary racist, but likely holding less than progressive views. — Hanover

Yes, I think that I tend to hesitate before any description for fear of causing offence or not being up-to-date. One wants to be right, doesn't one? Unless you are left !

Throughout this discussion, it seems that 'black' and 'white' are the preferred adjectives placed before the noun 'person' or the collective 'people'. Perhaps in the real world we could simply ask people how they prefer to be described - when or if it even matters. Subjective self-identification.

UK governmental forms have changed to take into account changing views and acceptability.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_ethnicity_in_the_United_Kingdom

'...User consultation undertaken by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for the purpose of planning the 2011 census in England and Wales found that most of the respondents from all ethnic groups that took part in the testing felt comfortable with the use of the terms "Black" and "White".

However, some participants suggested that these colour terms were confusing and unacceptable, did not adequately describe an individual's ethnic group, did not reflect his or her true skin colour, and were stereotypical and outdated terms.The heading "Black or Black British", which was used in 2001, was changed to "Black/African/Caribbean/Black British" for the 2011 census.

As with earlier censuses, individuals who did not identify as "Black", "White" or "Asian" could instead write in their own ethnic group under "Other ethnic group". Persons with multiple ancestries could indicate their respective ethnic backgrounds under a "Mixed or multiple ethnic groups" tick box and write-in area.[12]'

(I'm not even saying it's beyond debate that they're different words, only that it's a linguistic issue and can only be sorted out by looking at how they behave not by how people think they behave.) — Baden

I usually let you slink away with your weirdness, but I'm not feeling it today. If we had to consult with a professional linguist to arrive at translations, very little translation would ever have taken place.

Translation starts with a person who has enough connection to a language community to understand how the words are used.

We're not talking about translation as far as I'm concerned. The question doesn't primarily concern how to translate one word into another, it concerns whether or not there are enough differences between the way the variants of the word in question behave to justify considering those variants as two different words. For that, you need linguistic analysis of the sort in the article, which you originally refused to acknowledge even existed and now are just refusing to mention or respond to. And I'm weird... Do you at least accept that different syntactical rules for each variant (aggregated through statistical data on usage and analysis of said data) suggest something relevant wrt the question of definitions here? And what do you think that is? If not, what's your basis for denying its relevance?

Here's a simple point (already quoted) to respond to:

"Well, we argue that there is an emerging class of words that function as pronouns (remember elementary school English class? A pronoun is a word that stands in for another noun or noun-phrase) in some varieties of African American Vernacular English (AAVE), that are built out of the grammatical reanalysis of phrases including the n- word. Well, sort of the n- word because there's excellent evidence that there are actually at least two n-words, and that some speakers of AAVE differentiate between them and use them in different contexts."

One piece of evidence:

"In fact, we argue that in this dialect, it is now human and male by default, but not always (an example of the not always: "I adopted a cat and I love that nigga like a person"). It is also not inherently specified for race, like nigger and other epithets are. In fact, race is often added to it, so the authors may be referred to in our neighborhoods as "that white nigga" and "the black nigga who was with him." Others include "asian nigga," and even "African nigga.""

So, the standard English slur word "nigger" is specified for race. The AAVE version, it's argued, isn't. One difference amongst many identified.

My question is whether the N-word specifically has become a word that is per se insulting, regardless of context — Hanover

The idea of that makes no sense. What it is for an utterance to be insulting is for an individual to take it a particular way, to apply certain meanings and connotations to the utterance, to assume particular intentions, etc. So it depends on the individual considering it.

We're not talking about translation. The question doesn't concern how to translate one word into another, it concerns whether or not there are enough differences between the way the variants of the word in question behaves to justify considering those variants as two different words. — Baden

The bizarre argument we're examining is this:

1. I'm white.
2. There are sanctions against my use of the n-word.
3. Black people say the n-word without sanctions.

C. Therefore there is a contradiction that can only be resolved by

C1. Black people should stop saying it
C2. I should be allowed to say it.

The response you presented is this:

The n-word mentioned in 2 is not the same n-word mentioned in 3. The article you presented offers the opinion that the way the n-word shows up in varieties of AAVE is different enough from its use in formal English that it's not the same word. Is that not the point you were making?

Consider:

Bowman says, "Hook a nigga up."

This is AAVE. Could we drop Bowman's usage into a formal English statement and have it mean the same thing as the old n-word? We'll call this question R.

Examining R would require cognition of the very same type that's used in any kind of translation. You need a translator.

I'm not providing a blistering critique of the article you presented because it's not relevant. My Bowman example is common enough for the purposes of addressing this crazy issue.

As I said, the only reason I've come this far is that you do this a lot. You dig your heels in on a position that just seems completely nuts to me. I always walk away. This time I didn't.

1. I'm white.
2. There are sanctions against my use of the n-word.
3. Black people say the n-word without sanctions.

C. Therefore there is a contradiction that can only be resolved by

C1. Black people should stop saying it
C2. I should be allowed to say it. — frank

1. I'm a guy.
2. There are sanctions against me calling my wife's friends "bitch".
3. My wife and her friend say "bitch" without sanctions.

C. Therefore there is a contradiction that can only be resolved by

C1. Wife and friends should stop saying it
C2. I should be allowed to say it.

Yeah, but no. I'll leave it to you to figure out where you're going wrong.

The idea of that makes no sense. What it is for an utterance to be insulting is for an individual to take it a particular way, to apply certain meanings and connotations to the utterance, to assume particular intentions, etc. So it depends on the individual considering it. — Terrapin Station

I'm not sure that's entirely the case though. I think the utterance itself has become a perfomative act to some, where it's inexcusable regardless of intent. I don't think in the examples cited in the OP that there's evidence of mal-intent. The accusers just cite to the utterance itself and don't provide any evidence that the speakers were racist.

I'm not arguing that, Benkei. Go back to work, or taking care of your kid, whichever you're doing.

You'd probably get away with calling your wife and her friends a bitch. I actually think you could pull it off if you used it in the right context, like saying "hey bitch" with a feminine voice when you see them and prance over and give them a hug. It's risky, sure, but I think you overstate their protection of that word and I fully believe in your comedic sense of timing.

Lemme know how it goes.

No, you obviously don't need a translator. And handwaving everything I said away just so you can say what you want to say is going to result in quid pro quo from me.

(If you do want to actually respond to the substance my posts, I'll respond to you in kind later when I have time. That's fair in my bizarre world.).

But the cultural significance of all this is that in the public sphere, intent and the use-mention distinction are being ignored. And that is stupid. — jamalrob

Agreed.

This process of a group of people co-opting a word originally intended as derogatory of that group as a badge of honour is a very common process. That the word continues to be offensive when not used by people part of that group (or sub-culture as jamalrob describes it) is apparently confusing to some. However, it shouldn't be. — Benkei

It's not confusing to me. I just don't agree that those people should be reacting that way in some cases. As usual, context is everything. I think that it should be more about context than group membership. I don't think that I have to be a part of any group, I just have to get the context right. My friend was in the group of people who hold politically correct views about such language, whereby the term "nigger" should be replaced with term "the N-word". Even though I'm not a part of that group, I still think that I was in the right, and I only granted his wishes out of politeness. I wasn't using the word in a racist way. I was just talking about the kind of things we're talking about here: about racism, and how people react to minority ethnicities, and the language used by racists, and by those who have co-opted it, and by comedians, and by others, for various reasons, and with varying intentions. I don't agree with the self-censorship in such conversations. I think that it would be better if the listener got a grip of themselves instead of this tendency to overreact at the mere mentioning of the word, and expecting others to pander to their sensitivities.

Black people get to use that word, we honkies don't and we lost the right to do so because our dads and granddads were assholes to black people. — Benkei

Newsflash: yes we do, so long as it's not in a racist way. It might be inappropriate in some situations and cause a big reaction, but that's more a matter of being streetwise.

And my skin colour shouldn't matter. That's the whole point of anti-discrimination. It's disappointing and frustrating that so many people miss this and target people based on their skin colour or gender.

And no, I am not guilty for the sins of my ancestors.

I'm not sure that's entirely the case though. I think the utterance itself has become a perfomative act to some, where it's inexcusable regardless of intent. I don't think in the examples cited in the OP that there's evidence of mal-intent. — Hanover

My list (meaning, connotations, intent) etc. wasn't meant as an "every one of these is a necessary property" list, so that if one of them isn't checked off, then it doesn't count. It was rather illustrative of the sorts of things that people have to think about in order for an utterance to be insulting, or to be anything in particular really, rather than just a sound. That should have been clear by my "etc." among other things. You don't stick an "etc." in a "Here's an exhaustive list of necessary properties that each need to be checked off."

There's a kind of rock that's mostly found in Ohio. It's spherical and results from glaciers travelling back and forth over central North America. They're about the size of a volleyball. It used to be a thing to collect them and make walls or even houses out of them.

There's an old name for them that nobody uses anymore because it had the n-word in it. As far as I know, there isn't a new word, though. The last time I heard someone try to speak about them, they just pointed and said "those."

That is the power of a social wound.

great argument.

What?

I'm not white, Benkei. Your skimming skills have failed you.

There's an old name for them that nobody uses anymore because it had the n-word in it. As far as I know, there isn't a new word, though. The last time I heard someone try to speak about them, they just pointed and said "those."

That is the power of a social wound. — frank

Or a lack of imagination.