Richiefish said...Seems to me this word is misused. in-human , to not act human. Used to mean cruel, but many (maybe most), humans are cruel, so thats not inhuman at all. It should be used to describe somebody who is acting like something not human, like an octopus, or a rock.........
Yeah, quite right! We are risen apes not fallen angels and like the upwardly mobile we like to put on airs and pretensions. We even use the term "animal" as if it were exclusive of humans. What did the crowd of taunters say when the Elephant Man cried "I am not an animal"?
"Well what are you then, vegetable or mineral?"
Welcome to the dizzy world of semantics. In usage it seems proper meaning is valueless except as an initial introduction to a term when you have to stop and think about what it means. Once you're used to it you assign the generally accepted meaning and meaning is as arbitrarily assigned as it is to any sound.
One of my pet niggles is the term "homophobia". Its a newy, maybe 20 or 25 years old. It pretends to be a portamento word constructed of greek or latin roots. What are they? - "homo" and "phobia". "Homo" means either "of one" as in "homogeneous" or "man" or "mankind" as in "homo sapiens" (Incidentally, in the word "homosexual" it's the first meaning not the second). A "phobia" is an irrational fear or loathing. So on the face of it "homophobia" should mean "having an irrational fear of sameness" or "having an irrational fear of man". It doesn't mean either of these however. It seems to be a political pejorative that means something like having an aversion to p**fters. It's the pretentiousness of it that gets up my nose.
Curse the vile corruptors of language. Curse the teachers of practical English grammar that bend with the wind. Where is the certainty? Where are the goal posts? Why do people say "Do you want to..." when they mean "Please ..." - c**ts
