Word titles

sod - A section of grass-covered surface soil held together by matted roots; turf.

:smile:

ReNo said:
Prick or cow the WORST? Wow, I guess calling a girl a cow could be insulting, but somebody calling me a prick is normally coz they've done something mildly annoying, so rather than insulting its more "fair enough, I was really wasn't I" :biggrin:

Usually if some one does something mildy annoying I/we would call that persona dick head ro soemthing like that

/me checks to see if the coast is clear of teachers

ReNo said:
Prick or cow the WORST? Wow, I guess calling a girl a cow could be insulting, but somebody calling me a prick is normally coz they've done something mildly annoying, so rather than insulting its more "fair enough, I was really wasn't I" :biggrin:

now dangit.. lep and dave both led me to believe that prick did NOT mean annoying in the UK :sad:

sighs

/me goes back to drawing board..

It can mean more than one thing. :razz: Where did I lead you to believe that it didn't mean annoying?

Alien_Sniper said:
Prick = Penis

In some cases it implys having a small penis too.

i asked for a definition.. you stopped here.. you gave no further explanation.

lep on the other hand refused/ignored the request entirely, so it assumes he agrees with your explanation..

almost everyone else said some sort of definition along the lines of "annoying pain in the butt"

anywho's no one i know of would say "you are such a prick" and mean penis.. in spite of it having connotations meaning penis.

I think a lot of these terms have become generic insults, and no longer hold any meaning. Prick for instance, could mean penis or annoyance, but when most people say it they aren't thinking of what it means, just the effect of letting somebody know that they have something against them for some reason or another. Wanker is obviously suggesting you claim the person masturbates, which is hardly an insult in this day and age, yet it works as an effective insult on most people regardless.

I really think the meaning of most insults is irrelevant, its the manner in which they are used that is important.

You already knew it meant annoyance, I was merely pointing out another meaning Jon. :smile:

Screw you Blair! (prime exampe, I don't actually want to screw you) :biggrin:

How could you say that - you haven't even seen my picture yet :dodgy:

Orph, I recommend you read Grice on conversational implicature :biggrin:

Reference:

Grice 'Logic and Conversation' in Martinich (ed.) The Philosophy of Language

How could you say that - you haven't even seen my picture yet :dodgy:

Put up or shut up! :biggrin: Put up the pictue that is. As in upload the picture to a server and provide a link.

ReNo said:
I think a lot of these terms have become generic insults, and no longer hold any meaning. Prick for instance, could mean penis or annoyance, but when most people say it they aren't thinking of what it means, just the effect of letting somebody know that they have something against them for some reason or another. Wanker is obviously suggesting you claim the person masturbates, which is hardly an insult in this day and age, yet it works as an effective insult on most people regardless.

I really think the meaning of most insults is irrelevant, its the manner in which they are used that is important.

i concur with exactly this thinking.. except where cross generational, or cross country terms come into play..

my goal was not exactly to get a solid definition to any of these words, but if the condition arose again, i wanted to use the proper word for the region the person hails from..

i would never think of "wanker" period.. its not a word in my vocabulary, or was not till this thread.. i hope you see my point..

point in question... "pissant" has always, any continues to be small or tiny by my recollection.. in spite of the fact that the dictionary no longer carries this definition.. i would never have thought to look it up, cause quite frankly.. it never occurred to me. bottom line, i would not have improperly used the word on purpose.

also.. words like "bi-sexual" never ever had gay connotations when i was young.. you were either fag or straight.. nothing in between.. if i recall the word bi-sexual meant an entirely different thing all together.. completely opposite of a gay relation..

if i recall, "A-sexual" meant one sex to procreate.. "bi-sexual" meant it took two sex's to create off spring.. which is not uppermost in the minds of most gay couples :rolleyes:

anywho's.. i hope that clarifies it a bit..

Bi-sexual is just a term for people who have sex with both males and females as far as I'm aware.

Alien_Sniper said:
Bi-sexual is just a term for people who have sex with both males and females as far as I'm aware.

dangit, i know i am right..

mumbles

those stupid politically correct assholes have screwed up the whole dictionary

i have not the time now to sift thru 10,000 pages of gay bulls**t at the moment.. but i will find it eventually.. i refuse to believe they have that much power as to completely remove a definition just to pacify a bunch of pansies :rolleyes:

its just been to long since i took biology/anatomy in high school.. i could be thinking of an entirely different word :sad:

• bi?sex?u?al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-sksh-l)
  adj.
  <OL>
• Of or relating to both sexes.
• <OL type=a>
  <LI type=a>Having both male and female reproductive organs; hermaphroditic.
  <LI type=a>Botany. Denoting a single flower that contains functional staminate and pistillate structures; perfect. </LI>

[*] Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex.
</OL>
n. </LI>

• A bisexual organism; a hermaphrodite.
• A bisexual person.

</OL>

There you go Orph. Currently used definition is no where near the first. you are right.

[size=13][color=white]How could you say that - you haven't even seen my picture yet :dodgy:

Put up or shut up! :biggrin: Put up the pictue that is. As in upload the picture to a server and provide a link.
[/color][/size]

I really ought to get around to it, but I don't have a picture which I am prominent enough in to bother posting (they are all lo-res pictures in which even I can barely spot myself :biggrin: ). When I'm home over the summer I'll take a look at the photos from my last snowboarding holiday, might be one in there worth posting.

"pissant" has always, any continues to be small or tiny by my recollection.. in spite of the fact that the dictionary no longer carries this definition..

OK, but a word can have certain perceived meanings. If I see something that is very small, and I think it is good, then I would say 'very small' 'tiny'. If I don't think it?s good, I will say 'puny', even though puny strictly means ?of inferior size?, and so is not necessarily an insulting word. If somebody invites me to their quaint little cottage they just bought, and I like it, saying ?it?s puny, I like it? wouldn?t really make sense, because when someone says puny, people interpret this as meaning ?its small, and I don?t like it?.

It's using these words as modifiers or adjectives that is the problem, and in the context you used it in I still think it was wrong to label them "pissant countries" :razz:

There's no way of resolving it, it's just choosing where and which modifier you use. "Small" countries would probably have been better, pissant, on any side of the ocean can, and will be taken as offensive if you pass off an entire group of nations with such a throwaway word.

TBH this all probably relates to the deep seated lack of internationalism/international awareness that America seems to have (that's not a criticism, don't read it as such) and coupled with the accepted way of conducting oneself in written, or verbal form.... blah blah blah.

Go take an English Language A-Level, or degree, it explains all this perfectly :razz:

hence this thread sir gwil..

anywho's.. improper english is an american pastime, some will go to great lengths at times to illustrate..

little pissant country, i can see it from your viewpoint, it does sound derogatory, especially in light of the new (or not so new) definition.. but think of it my way.. little pisaant country can and did mean little tiny country.. little and tiny do not go together in the same sentence, its improper, or i was lead to believe it was.. but little pissant, changes the tiny word to a more acceptable english use.. hence little tiny country was how i was thinking when i said it.. remember this, i drive more in one day, than the length of your entire island, or maybe in two days time..

your country is tiny.. not insignificant.. which is a very large distinction.

sometimes misunderstandings are indeed one sided, but in this case you failed to take my history into account.. one which has never degraded ones home here at the pit.

in this case, the misunderstanding was on both sides of the pond... mine unintentional, yours... for whatever drove you to see it poorly.

I missed whatever thread this stemmed from, but I can certainly agree that pissant would be viewed as a derogatory term in this country - I see nothing but the words "piss" and "ant" combined, which doesn't make for a friendly term. Of course in your definition, pissant obviously isn't insulting, so its not a problem.

The reason "small" and "tiny" don't go together is that one usurps the other - why bother saying small if it is tiny?

Well I took issue with the fact that it's just not accepted in international relations, serious or otherwise to label countries as "pissant" :razz: Whatever the definition of pissant is, it definately has negative connotations over here and i will point out "piss" is a profanity, simple as...

not wanting to make it personal, but you could have chosen different words, ie ones which didnt contain "piss" :razz: let alone pissant!

also, it was used in the sense of "30 or 40 pissant countries"... when speaking of Europe. I think more people were struck by the ignorance of the remark more than the words used, although they were a major contributory factor.

TBH, words are pretty much the same - we have different colloquialisms and slangs here and there, this has less to with translation difficulties more with exercising common sense in conversation/written text.

Trust me on that one as well, I studied the subject in-depth for quite a period :razz:

I think maybe this comes from the american idea that the bigger something is, the better it is :smile: Therefore if something is smaller, it is automatically inferior no matter what. It's not an insult, just the concept of something being small but not worse hasn't been grasped </flamebait> :razz:

what it stems from is i didn't think...

you just don't look up every single word you may use in a sentence on the what if chance its been altered in definition..

i did apologize for my error, it was entirely unintentional..

here again, the purpose for this topic.. i wanna use a word that is acceptable to the UK to describe their little piece of this world.

i did apologize gwil.. it was a grievous error, but one stemming from past uses.

as i said, we even have a small/tiny insectoid called a piss ant, or more commonly called a sugar ant.. those awful little things that always find their way into your sugar bowl.. they are tiny... tiny=pissant

Tracer Bullet said:

• There you go Orph. Currently used definition is no where near the first. you are right.

thanx a bunch TB, i was at the store and come back to find my hard research already accomplished..

it was not exactly what i was thinking.. being one body containing both organs, but it will suffice..

thanx again bud :smile:

the transition words make in meaning as well, and why, how and where it happens.. studied that as well.. urgh.

i hate being good at something i find so intensely boring and tedious :razz:

and Orph, I really wouldn't worry about it :razz: it's too complex and diverse a topic/issue to get in a mither about :razz: hence i cut short my explanatory post on it :razz:

Gwil said:
the transition words make in meaning as well, and why, how and where it happens.. studied that as well.. urgh.

i hate being good at something i find so intensely boring and tedious :razz:

and Orph, I really wouldn't worry about it :razz: it's too complex and diverse a topic/issue to get in a mither about :razz: hence i cut short my explanatory post on it :razz:

as long as you understand it was not my goal, i am fine...

contrary to popular opinion, i don't set out to make comments like they are taken.

I think maybe this comes from the american idea that the bigger something is, the better it is :smile: Therefore if something is smaller, it is automatically inferior no matter what. It's not an insult, just the concept of something being small but not worse hasn't been grasped </flamebait> :razz:

Don't be too sure. Since that is a sterotype for Americans.

I'm American and I hate bulky/huge things. (I'm nust over pocket sized super computers or anything, like some of my friends are ... who happen to be Korean )

For instance: I think that a stick of 5Gb Flash memory (for something like a Pocket PC) is much better then a DVD :smile: . Simply because it's smaller and faster.

But that's just me (and most everyone I know).

But then again, what would you rather have? A 10ft (3.05m) robot. Or a 200 ft (60.96m) Mech ... with rocket launchers and ... machine guns ... with an auto-tageting system for flying zombie monkeys.