2)"But if this is what Hare intends, then he is denying that words are ever useless. In finding a word useless, we assume that we are not in a position to mean by it something different from that which those who use it mean." (133) I disagree with this - there have been many instances in the past of the meaning of a word changing or acquiring new connotations through use. Though it may be difficult, especially with a slur, the possibility of changing the meaning of one does seem possible.
3) For a question, I'm not sure I understand Hornsby's rejection of the "doog" example (on page 132) because she responds to the idea of a purely descriptive word by saying "But it does not seem we can [introduce such a word]."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of what Hornsby was trying to say about not being able to change the meaning of slurs was that in some respect once a word has taken on the status of a slur, it's not just a matter of trying to change the meaning. In some sense that word will always be a slur. I agree with you in that this idea seems a little strong; as you say, language changes over time. Maybe a better way to look at it would be to say that a slur's force can change over time, becoming less powerful as it slips out of use (like the "Boche" example in class / the paper) but I think Hornsby is right that to some extent even outdated slurs are still slurs.
ReplyDelete--André Robert