Kilt, Skirt, MUG, etc.

[jkdesq]

Even your precious OED says so, though you insist it doesn't. And while pointing out that we do not have language police as the French do, you appear to wish to police English usage by denying a legitimate common usage for some personal reason.

Hey, all I know is that my Concise OED that is sitting in front of me at this very minute defines Kilt as "a skirtlike garment, usu. of pleated tartan cloth and reseaching to the knees, as traditionally worn by Highland men. 2 a similar garemnt worn by women and children." and this same OED defines "skirt" as "a woman's outer grament hanging from the waist." From this is it quite difficult to come to the conclusion that the OED writers, editors and publishers believe that English speakers believe that kilts are skirts.

If you are so sure I am lying about what my copy of the OED says, why don't you go to your library and have a look in a Concise OED and tell us what you see. Better yet, why don't you find the full length version of the OED and see what it says.

Fine, the online version of the OED (Compact and not Concise) defines "kilt" as "a knee-length skirt of pleated tartan cloth, traditionally worn by men as part of Scottish Highland dress" which seems to be to be verbatim what the definition in Websters was. I would suggest that the Concise version trumphs the Compact version.

The puzzling things is that, although the online Compact version defines a kilt to be a skirt, this same version defines "skirt" to be "a woman’s outer garment fastened around the waist and hanging down around the legs." How then can a man's kilt be a skirt if a skirt is a woman's garment. An internal inconsistency!

The only lesson to be drawn (and a lesson learned by all reading your posts) is that you cannot believe everything you read on the internet. Trust the printed version!

Language is not science. Not every word needs to be seen as a sub-set of larger more general words. "Sarongs", "lava lavas" and "kilts" to not need to be seen as a subset of "skirt" just like "stemware" does not need to be seen as a subset of "cup". It is possible for a kilt just to be a kilt, skirtlike maybe but still a kilt and only a kilt.

HEY, I'm not the one with the fixed position. I recognized the ambiguity and the, as someone else called it, fuzziness. I can accept your position that a kilt is a skirt. I don't like it, but I do accept it. Can't you accept my position?

[jkdesq]

So pretty soon you have things that waddle like a duck, quack like a duck, and float like a duck, but nobody actually calls them ducks. Which is really dumb, if you ask me.

Well, duck/drake, chicken/rooster? hmmmmm. Something that walks like a cow, mooes like a cow and grazes like a cow and is not a cow is of course a bull. A kilt can be very skirtlike and still not be a skirt. After all, I hope you agree that there are plenty of similarities and plenty of differences between a kilt and a skirt (ie. a woman's garment) just like there are similarities and difference between a cow and a bull.

"Skirt" is to "kilt", as "cow" is to "bull". Unfortunately, we have no overarching general word for these garments that would line up with "bovine". One possible theory.

Language is not science. Classifications? As far as I know, the only classifications of words are noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, etc. other than that, we have alphabetical order. If there is some chart of the categories of words and a map to how they are subdivided, I would love to see it.

Still the question why. I know why I don't want people to view kilts as a kind of skirt. Why do you care so much to prove that they are? I am seriously curious why you care so much to prove this.

[Freedomlover]

Hey, all I know is that my Concise OED that is sitting in front of me at this very minute defines Kilt as "a skirtlike garment, usu. of pleated tartan cloth and reseaching to the knees, as traditionally worn by Highland men. 2 a similar garemnt worn by women and children." and this same OED defines "skirt" as "a woman's outer grament hanging from the waist." From this is it quite difficult to come to the conclusion that the OED writers, editors and publishers believe that English speakers believe that kilts are skirts.

I have provided you with a link to the online Compact OED which, beyond all possibility of argument, defines a kilt as a skirt, as do all other English dictionaries I know about.

If you are so sure I am lying about what my copy of the OED says, why don't you go to your library and have a look in a Concise OED and tell us what you see. Better yet, why don't you find the full length version of the OED and see what it says.

No one has accused you of lying. What I said was that the online Compact OED contradicts you. Why do you suppose that different editions contain different definitions?

Fine, the online version of the OED (Compact and not Concise) defines "kilt" as "a knee-length skirt of pleated tartan cloth, traditionally worn by men as part of Scottish Highland dress" which seems to be to be verbatim what the definition in Websters was. I would suggest that the Concise version trumphs the Compact version.

I see. You have attached youself to one verse of scripture, and reject all others.

The puzzling things is that, although the online Compact version defines a kilt to be a skirt, this same version defines "skirt" to be "a woman’s outer garment fastened around the waist and hanging down around the legs." How then can a man's kilt be a skirt if a skirt is a woman's garment. An internal inconsistency!

It certainly is. I have been on Webster's case for twenty years about that very point.

The only lesson to be drawn (and a lesson learned by all reading your posts) is that you cannot believe everything you read on the internet. Trust the printed version!

Oooo, the ad hominem, that's a nice touch.

HEY, I'm not the one with the fixed position. I recognized the ambiguity and the, as someone else called it, fuzziness. I can accept your position that a kilt is a skirt. I don't like it, but I do accept it. Can't you accept my position?

Of course. I fully recognize your right to think whatever you want. I have no problem with you or what you want to think.

I think I will start a poll. Let's find out what the members think.

[Mike1]

Let's keep things friendly here, OK? ;)

[jkdesq]

Freedomlover,

I notice how you pick and choose the portions of my post to which you respond. If you evaluated the entire piece, I think you would find that I have already answered to the points you draw out in your response:

i) you know about the Concise OED that says a kilt is "skirtlike" not a "skirt"; plus you acknowledge that both Websters and OED define a "skirt" as a woman's garment
ii) the Compact is smaller than the Concise, I guess the editors either copied Websters (shutter) or economized on the "like"
iii) I don't attach myself to any verse -- I have identified the ambiguity and have take the position I prefer -- kilts are not skirts, because generally skirts are viewed as woman's clothing -- a view arrived at by looking at many sources
iv) The internal inconsistency -- thanks for agreeing with me -- this supports point iii)
v) ad hominem -- learnt from you -- you can't suggest that you weren't ad hominem in your post of 4:49 am today
vi) If you can accept my position, why do you keep responding saying yours is the only correct one?

We can agree that a poll would be a great idea.

[flyv65]

I think I will start a poll. Let's find out what the members think.

In the words of Invader Zim, "that's a good question...BUT I DON'T CARE!"

I'd like to think that people would call them kilts because of the subtle differences in connotation (and to an extent the historical implications), but it won't impact my actions one bit. About the only time I take umbrage is when people say "nice dress"...they must clearly be thinking of a tabard or some type of tunic.

Bryan...does that make my shorts become "panties"?...

[Dreadbelly]

Well, duck/drake, chicken/rooster? hmmmmm. Something that walks like a cow, mooes like a cow and grazes like a cow and is not a cow is of course a bull. A kilt can be very skirtlike and still not be a skirt. After all, I hope you agree that there are plenty of similarities and plenty of differences between a kilt and a skirt (ie. a woman's garment) just like there are similarities and difference between a cow and a bull.

"Skirt" is to "kilt", as "cow" is to "bull". Unfortunately, we have no overarching general word for these garments that would line up with "bovine". One possible theory.

Language is not science. Classifications? As far as I know, the only classifications of words are noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, etc. other than that, we have alphabetical order. If there is some chart of the categories of words and a map to how they are subdivided, I would love to see it.

Still the question why. I know why I don't want people to view kilts as a kind of skirt. Why do you care so much to prove that they are? I am seriously curious why you care so much to prove this.

Very well. You asked the loaded and dangerous question, and I shall reply against my better judgment.

It is important to keep it as it is, as what etymology classifies it as, for acceptance.

If we were a skirtlike garment but refuse to call it skirtlike or a skirt, we live in denial. And others might see this, and make a lot more out of it than it really is. If we deny that it is a skirt, because of how the devious human mind words, observers might start asking themselves what other things are we in denial of. Oh. That man is wearing a skirt. But denies that it is a skirt. He's cross dressing but denies it. I wonder what else he is hiding?

Sound crazy? Yes. But people think this way.

Now, same situation, if a kilt wearer can acknowledge that it is indeed, a skirt, but one that is distinctly called a kilt, confidence and assurance is everything. There is no denial here, no dangling questions, nothing to lead on a train of thought. There is only confidence and a positive attitude. Which is more likely to invoke a "Hey, this man knows his beans, knows what people must be thinking about him, and obviously doesn't care. He has nothing to hide." train of thought.

Perception is everything. Denial, like it or not, will only lead to negative connotations. It answers nothing, and therefore leads those with questions to only ask more of them. Acceptance with firm reassurance and confidence "scratch the itch" and do more to satisfy those with inquisitive minds.

[kiltedpride]

If we wear a skirtlike garment but refuse to call it skirtlike or a skirt, we live in denial.

Just out of interest some of you might have seen the exhibition Men in Skirts at the Victoria and Albert Museum (That's Albert who wore a PA under kilt to keep the kilt reference) and which exhibition toured internationally including New York. The exhibition was designed to dispel the myth that the skirt is an exclusively female garment and looked at contemporary designs inspired by togas, frock coats, kilts, dhotis, sarongs and caftans - all items traditionally worn by men. There is a wonderful book on the subject see http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/men_in_skirts/ and http://www.metmuseum.org/store/st_family_viewer.asp?familyID={792CA70F-E002-49D4-87F9-5906845ED3BC}&shopperID=catBooks&familyNo=2&catID= {84338673-BC36-11D3-936D-00902786BF44}
and
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/se_event.asp?OccurrenceId=823731F9-6846-4D66-AFF5-AB57B724C97A}
I commend all to buy the book as a study guide to this subject.

[Freedomlover]

Freedomlover,

I notice how you pick and choose the portions of my post to which you respond. If you evaluated the entire piece, I think you would find that I have already answered to the points you draw out in your response:

Sure I do. Not everything anyone says, including myself, requires a detailed response.

i) you know about the Concise OED that says a kilt is "skirtlike" not a "skirt"; plus you acknowledge that both Websters and OED define a "skirt" as a woman's garment

ii) the Compact is smaller than the Concise, I guess the editors either copied Websters (shutter) or economized on the "like".

Nevertheless, you have a version that says one thing, and I have a version that says another. I guess you would have to agree that in this matter, at least, the OED contradicts itself.

iii) I don't attach myself to any verse -- I have identified the ambiguity and have take the position I prefer -- kilts are not skirts, because generally skirts are viewed as woman's clothing -- a view arrived at by looking at many sources

I know where you are coming from, and I have no problem (I'm saying now for the third time) with you believing whatever you like. But the inescapable fact remains that a strip of cloth wound around the area of the waist, no matter how it is constructed, can be legitimately called a skirt. Some people don't like that. You, for instance, but it changes nothing.

v) ad hominem -- learnt from you -- you can't suggest that you weren't ad hominem in your post of 4:49 am today

I cordially direct the attention of all readers to my post #64. There is nothing in it that even faintly resembles a personal attack.

vi) If you can accept my position, why do you keep responding saying yours is the only correct one?

Please show me where I have said that my position is the only correct one. (It is, of course, but I have not made the bald claim )

I have said that I accept your absolute right to believe whatever you want to. I have exactly the same right, and I believe you are wrong. jkdesq, you seem to be taking personal offence where none was intended. Evidently you don't much care for me articulately expressing an opinion you don't agree with. There are hundreds of members here at Xmarks, and disagreements are commonplace. Because I disagree with you does not mean that I don't respect you as a man.

[Freedomlover]

Very well. You asked the loaded and dangerous question, and I shall reply against my better judgment....

Hey, Dread, havent you heard that telling the truth is usually considered a capital offence?

Oh, yes, and the term "cow" is simply a broad usage describing any domesticated bovine. That is the same broad usage that defines a kilt as a skirt. A specialized skirt to be sure, but a skirt nonetheless.