Here's the actual quote:
Buuuut… I'd say that for a few decades now at least, the primary use of "mute" is that every remote control, TV, stereo, and media player (device and software) in existence has a "mute" button, which controls a setting and is therefore implicitly a choice and not an inherent limitation. Seems to me it's the other condition that should differentiate itself (if indeed such differentiation is even worth creating a special term over).
So the primary meaning is a voluntary turning off of the sound, but the dictionary meaning, so often quoted here as proof (unable to) is only the secondary meaning? The primary meaning is the incorrect one.
I'm unable to follow what you're trying to assert here. The layers of sarcasm and/or lexico-oral insertion are too dense. In addition to your confusing my assessment with the dictionary's.
Here, I've taken the definitions from dictionary.com and color-coded them. Red = by-choice
, blue = by-incapacity
, purple = either
1. silent; refraining from speech or utterance.
2. not emitting or having sound of any kind.
3. incapable of speech; dumb.
4. (of letters) silent; not pronounced.
5. Law. (of a person who has been arraigned) making no plea or giving an irrelevant response when arraigned, or refusing to stand trial (used chiefly in the phrase to stand mute).
6. Fox Hunting. (of a hound) hunting a line without giving tongue or cry.
7. Offensive. a person incapable of speech.
8. an actor whose part is confined to dumb show.
9. Law. a person who stands mute when arraigned.
10. Also called sordino. a mechanical device of various shapes and materials for muffling the tone of a musical instrument.
11. Phonetics. a stop.
12. British Obsolete. a hired mourner at a funeral; a professional mourner.
verb (used with object)
13. to deaden or muffle the sound of.
14. to reduce the intensity of (a color) by the addition of another color.
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.
1. not giving out sound or speech; silent
2. unable to speak; dumb
3. unspoken or unexpressed: mute dislike
4. (law) (of a person arraigned on indictment) refusing to answer a charge
5. (phonetics) another word for plosive
6. (of a letter in a word) silent
7. a person who is unable to speak
8. (law) a person who refuses to plead when arraigned on indictment for an offence
9. any of various devices used to soften the tone of stringed or brass instruments
10. (phonetics) a plosive consonant; stop
11. a silent letter
12. an actor in a dumb show
13. a hired mourner at a funeral
14. to reduce the volume of (a musical instrument) by means of a mute, soft pedal, etc
15. to subdue the strength of (a colour, tone, lighting, etc)
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
Unable or unwilling to speak.
One who does not have the faculty of speech. No longer in technical use, considered offensive.
The American Heritage ® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
My remote-control meaning seems to be the primary verb
definition (the secondary one probably generally only beknownst to Rin, Nomiya, and their like). The one marked "offensive" seems to be the primary noun
definition. The various adjective
meanings are apparently not generally offensive, and only one — secondary or tertiary — in each group means by-incapacity. Unfortunately, it's not possible to compare across parts of speech, as they segregate them and list alphabetically. At any rate, if a real lexicographer were to count up instances of the various uses, I'd be super
surprised if all the nouns put together were anywhere near the top single adjective or verb meanings. I mean, honestly, how often is a person who never talks (by choice or not) even mentioned compared to "hey, mute that TV, willya?" and "on this matter, the author remains mute" and so forth?
All told, it's kinda beyond me why you keep insisting that "mute" can only mean physical incapacity to talk.
Your efforts seem aimed not only at sabotaging any such reclamation, but at furthering perceptions of offense. It's very unclear what improvement you hope to be made to the lexicon by doing this.
What? I told everyone the perception of the word as it stands to day
…by a particular subset of a subset of people. We all seem to know plenty of deaf people who either don't mind it or actually prefer it, and none who are offended by it. So it seems like the consensus is far from the black-and-white picture you're painting.
There was that humdinger of being 'deaf by choice'.
Not seeing where anyone said that, either. Getting to be a pattern…
I'm wrong and have to shut up and submit to the New Received Meaning, end of story? How is that give and take?
You stop saying that, they'll stop being mad at you.
This is a depressing new definition of "give and take" that will come in handy in political circles, I'm sure. "We tell you what to do, and you do it. See? Give and take!"
You seem to think you're being made someone's bitch by admitting a mistake.
You seem to think I'm making
a mistake. As is anyone who disagrees with you about more or less anything.
that would probably best for both parties.
On that, we can agree. I hardly need people in my life who go around searching for innocuous things to be offended about and telling me how I'm allowed to talk.
If by "ignorance", you mean "unfamiliarity with this supposed verboten status", that's one thing. But I have a distinct feeling you actually mean "obvious caveman-like inferiority to enlightened people like myself".
Versus the very alpha aggressive response? My strawman can beat up your strawman.
You're welcome to explain what your meaning was. Or, hey, just snort at me more, that works, right?
But that's exactly what's happened here. You told him it's offensive; he questioned it; and then you berated him for arguing back at you.
He also held the 'I don't see why it could be considered offensive, therefore it isn't' viewpoint.
And that makes it ok for you to forbid him from arguing?
Is automatically acceding to every demand a viewpoint?
This isn't automatic at all - the reasons why it's considered offensive have been made clear
They haven't at all. The closest anyone came was someone — definitely not you — saying it was the blanket assumption that all deaf people are also mute (whether by choice or not). I could see someone being annoyed by something so factually wrong, but in reality I could not point to a single human being in this day and age who is not aware of deaf people talking all the time. I mean, the phrase "deaf accent" is pretty well-known in itself, and you gotta talk to have an accent, y'know? Marlee Matlin alone has been around for decades, and she's not exactly a secret. Not to mention all the talking deaf people everyone seems to know personally.
Your own attempts are all rooted in insisting that there can be no other kind of muteness besides physical incapability, and despite your flailing, we can all plainly see that voluntary muteness is still muteness.
albeit for reasons you don't agree with to the point of finding them laughable.
Again with putting words in my mouth. I don't know where you're getting this "laughable" business.