Language is arbitrary. The meanings of words, and their relation to reality exist only because the majority of speakers agree that they do. This collection of meaning forms a language, the basis of communication. Each generation learns these collections, absorbs them, and makes them their own. Every generation of speakers learns the language a little differently, and changes the meanings to suit their own needs. Language is never fixed. The arbitrary nature of language means that subtle shifts can occur in the agreed upon meaning by a portion of the population, without altering the outward appearance of the language.
A change in meaning can be intentional and coded. For instance, slang is used for group identity and to hide the actual meaning from outsiders. In that case the community of practice has agreed upon the meanings of specific words, and have altered it from the normal usage. Bad is a good example of this, taking a commonly agreed upon meaning and turning it on its head, to the confusion of those outside the community of practice.
It can also occur subtly and without any conscious choice. The word suck, for example, has changed greatly from its connotations earlier in the 20th century, and within one or two generations shifted from a meaning of fellatio, into a meaning of dislike, or undesirability. Acting as a homonym between the two generations, one meaning profane, and taboo, one mild, and while rude, entirely non sexual. This has occurred without any explanation or reason, just that the arbitrary meaning shifted and is different between the two generations.
Similarly the word *** has undergone multiple transformations in the 20th century. Today we can look back with mild amusement on movie titles of the 30s and 40s that used the word, such as “The *** Sisters”, “The *** Falcon”, and “The *** Caballero”; at the time it still had its modern meaning of exuberant or happy. From there it became a codeword among homosexuals, who were attempting to avoid using the term homosexual, which was still a clinical term for the “disease” of homosexuality. The meaning shifted again and again depending on who used it and for what purpose until it was fully embraced by the homosexual community as a positive descriptor, much like queer was. While it can still be used negatively with enough inflection, modern usage of *** is usually positive, or just a neutral descriptor. It has become the casual identifier of a homosexual, just as straight has become the casual identifier of a heterosexual.
However, I believe there has been another shift in the meaning of *** in certain contexts. At one time the association may have been there between bad and homosexual, but the meaning has now shifted even further away.
My theory is, there are two distinct meanings and contexts of the utterance ***. That it is now a homonym, and that the context must be used to determine which one it is. Gay1 being the now common usage to describe in positive or neutral terms, a homosexual, or one who is homosexual, and gay2 being an adjective to describe an action, object or situation as negative, unfair, uncool or non-beneficial in some way. That they use these two variations, at the same time for different purpose; that they will describe people they know as homosexuals as ***(1) and they will also describe unfair situations as ***(2).
The counter argument, is that there is no shift, there is only gay1, and that the usage of the word *** only refers to homosexuals. When using *** as a negative adjective it is reflective of negative attitudes towards homosexuals and homosexuality and is being used as a slur. I believe my thesis is a better explanation for the use of *** in that context then that assumptions.
*** as an adjective to mean homosexual requires a few things. To be a homosexual you have to have at least one gender (+gender) and you have to be alive (+living). A car cannot be a homosexual as it is not alive, nor does it have a gender, male or female. So the sentence “#That car is homosexual” is nonsensical. If *** meant only homosexual then the sentence “That car is ***” would also be nonsensical. Yet it’s allowed with modern colloquial usage. Therefore *** in that context must mean something other then homosexual
While it is an interesting linguistic phenomenon in its own right, the theory could also have a beneficial applications. Within the United States there is 1969 United States federal hate-crime law, and the Matthew Shepard act, which form the basis of hate crime legislation. It codifies that anyone who commits a crime against someone because of race, color, religion, national origin, actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability; shall face additional penalties. This additional penalty can be one year, or 10 years for an assault, or life, and even the death penalty for other capital crimes. This makes the determination of a hate crime very important. If someone were to commit a crime, and utter the phrase “That’s ***” and the common meaning of the word is applied, it could be considered a hate crime. When in actuality the intended meaning has nothing to do with homosexuality. If this theory is correct and there is corroborating evidence, this can be used as scientific research to aid in the identification of what is, or is not a hate crime.
