Vulgar didn't mean what we think today.

Quick Index Board Index Home FAQ Site Map

View thread | Previous message | Next message

Vulgar didn't mean what we think today. Written by Reeba (2/18/2011 9:51 a.m.) in consequence of the missive, Emma, half-gentlemen and vulgarity, penned by Nikki N

It meant ,

1. 'common',
2. lower class, mean (low). (Johnson's dictionary).

I think the roots are from the similar sounding German word which means 'common' even today.

Emma probably meant the first here since the second would not be invited.

Same as how 'clownish' meant what we may call a 'country bumpkin' from a village, while 'vulgar' must describe people from a town/city etc.

Previous message | Next message | Board index

Emma's double standard Kathleen Glancy (2/17/2011 12:06 p.m.)

The vulgar Cox sisters. Reeba (2/17/2011 3:42 p.m.)
- Interesting Tidbit, Amusing, Indeed Thanks nfm BarbaraB (2/17/2011 5:26 p.m.)
Emma, half-gentlemen and vulgarity Nikki N (2/18/2011 12:08 a.m.)
- Vulgar didn't mean what we think today. Reeba (2/18/2011 9:51 a.m.)
  - Thanks, Reeba! This actually makes Emma look worse... Delories (2/19/2011 8:31 a.m.)
    - It's the "Martin effect" ;-) Reeba (2/20/2011 7:28 a.m.)
      - LOL! *nfm* Delories (2/21/2011 8:42 a.m.)
What/who is "vulgar", anyway? Delories (2/18/2011 2:46 a.m.)
- The Eligible and Desirable Robert Martin Jane Marie (2/18/2011 10:08 a.m.)
  - Did you mean "Cox girls"? Glenn (2/18/2011 11:00 a.m.)
    - Oops! I stand corrected.NFM Jane Marie (2/18/2011 12:02 p.m.)
  - as long as she could give comfort or advice Stephanie (2/18/2011 11:06 a.m.)
    - Read Reeba's post below Glenn (2/18/2011 11:47 a.m.)

Groupread is maintained by Myretta with WebBBS 3.21.

View thread | Previous message | Next message Board index

- Jane Austen | Republic of Pemberley -

Quick Index

Home

Site Map

JAInfo