Talk:embourgeoisement

Tags
Non-standard, how so? Widsith 09:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the gap of the pond is growing. http://news.google.com/news?q=%22embourgeoisement%22  Such a construction is a little beyond silly, no?  --Connel MacKenzie 10:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That certainly suggests rarity, but doesn't make it "non-standard", a term which implies that there is some other "standard" word for the same idea. But there isn't. This word is in the OED and Chambers and has been cited by a broadsheet newspaper and an eminent historian, which makes it pretty standard in my book. Widsith 15:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * More than rarity, it suggests it is British - hence, unheard of, over here. I don't know why England has abandoned all rules for word formation, but that unnatural utterance wouldn't/couldn't be said here.  Likewise, its appearance in British references, but not American unabridged sources reinforces that notion.  For coherency and clarity, that concept would only be phrased as something like "became more bourgeoisie" if intended for serious publication.  The use of the playful prefix and silly suffix and using the French spelling instead of including the second "i" makes it a "Simpsons-like" jocular or nonsense formation, albeit, one that doesn't yet exist as such.


 * All that said, I thought you were asking why I tagged it, rather than asking if it is OK to correct the tag from "nonstandard" to "UK". I'll make that adjustment now.


 * Thank you for that unexpected pleasure; I've become rather accustomed to the newer more militant/disruptive contributor's tactic of "flip-the-bird, change first, then discuss." The civility you demonstrated (that at one time was the rule here) is so rare these days, I didn't even suspect you were being kind and rational, by simply asking the question.


 * --Connel MacKenzie 17:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see this revision. I don’t think this word warrants a   tag; however, perhaps a    tag would be apt. What do you say? † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I find that fascinating...you found a quote of someone named "MacKenzie" (capitalized "M" and "K" if one is to believe the b.g.c. link provided) yet found a passage were it is erroneously in lowercase? Or is that some kind of slight?


 * The one "American sociology" quotation given uses it in quotation marks. Doesn't that make you wonder why?  The Puerto Rican citation likewise is discussing other (British?) Caribbean islands.  The rest, do seem to be more directly British.  Indeed, I'm more inclined to assert the "Chiefly British" or perhaps even "Only British English" now.  --Connel MacKenzie 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The “mackenzie” quotation was an extra one given on the hits screen itself — it seems GBS only shows a maximum of three of those snippet view boxes. Not a slight — search for it yourself and Ctrl+F (or whatever your shortcut key is) Contemporary Sociology if you don’t believe me. That American sociology quotation uses it with quotation marks only for what I assume to be the first occurrence of the term. IMO, this is a largely unanglicised academic term whose use is chiefly restricted to sociology; I don’t find any evidence of specifically UK usage. However, if you still think that there is, that’s fine — I have no desire to argue. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting that I can't find that quote, even using your ".co.uk" link. Interesting too, that following the original link and searching for "Affluent Worker" yields only one hit (also on page 44) that matches the citation, not at all.  Very strange and a bit discomfiting, despite your reassurances.
 * Simply ignoring the different grammatic constructions (left pond vs. right pond) makes it easy to misunderstand this term as being possible in GenAm. I doubt you could use this term in a technical environment (such as a talk on sociology) over here with provoking snickers or outright laughter.  That of course, is fine, if that is the desired response.  I consider myself honored to have now learned that such a ridiculous-seeming construction is possible elsewhere.  --Connel MacKenzie 00:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I found the link for you; curiously, “MacKenzie” is properly capitalised therein, whereas the GBS hit that lead me thither still displays erroneous capitalisation (see the top hit of this search). I’m at a loss to explain why.
 * Simply, this is a borrowing, which I think, if used outside the academic sociological context (at least if spoken outside of such a context), would sound a bit pretentious on either side of the transatlantic divide. It probably wouldn’t sound so pretentious, however, if it were pronounced . (BTW, if you don’t understand IPA, I’ll be happy to give you an enPR or SAMPA transcription instead.) Although, in such a register, “bourgeoisification” seems more appropriate. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)