Article: Linguistically Submissive (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive



Message

Caitriona -> Article: Linguistically Submissive (9/20/2006 5:40:45 AM)

In an effort to understand how others view their role as submissive, I've been doing some reading.  I know the article "The Healthy Submissive" has been brought up here, and while doing some searching, I found another article I'd like to share.  It's entitled "Linguistically Submissive" and it's from the Taken In Hand website.

Here is an excerpt:

"Frequently I am perplexed by the suggestion that a submissive person is, somehow, a lesser person, or a weaker person, or a person who is less than fully developed in their personality.  Exactly how this idea came about I have no idea but I wonder if perhaps there was some moment in the tortured history of the vernacular that a simple minded person couldn't distinguish between submissive, subservient, subordinate, and substandard and muddled up their adjectives..."

You can read the full article here.  Has anyone else read it?  Any comments/thoughts?  Thanks!



LadyEllen -> RE: Article: Linguistically Submissive (9/20/2006 7:17:11 AM)

Hi Caitriona

Its a thing with the English language really. We lost a lot of reflexive verb/pronoun combinations like we lost a lot of other grammatical things as the language progressed.

For French (and other languages), where they still have them, there is no confusion - there are two forms. Soumettre as in submit (a post, for instance), and se soumettre as in a person or thing submitting itself. Je soumets (I submit) means something different to Je me soumets (I submit myself). This avoids the confusion raised in the article about who/what is being submitted. I think the word surrender shows this well for English speakers. Its a combination of the French rendre (render, give something) and the French reflexive se. I surrender is therefore, I render myself. That we in English now use it as a non reflexive to indicate the surrender of a town in war, for instance, is what leads to the confusion. Really, we should say we render the town, each inhabitant of which surrenders.

I think its a shame we lost some pronouns that would be oh so useful - like thou, indicating a "you" which is somehow inferior to the person speaking it. The dominant would always be "you" and the submissive always "thou". As I've read on some German sites, they use their forms in this way quite a lot (Sie and du).

E






happypervert -> RE: Article: Linguistically Submissive (9/20/2006 7:22:08 AM)

I thought the most informative part of that article was this sentence:

quote:

I'd especially like to apologise to any linguists, grammarians, etymologists or other skilled wordsmiths for whom my clumsy and imprecise attempts to clarify the use of language will possibly be experienced as a form of verbal torture. 

Though I'm not a linguist or skilled wordsmith, I'll accept that apology anyway and add that there is no need to qualify it by using the word "possibly".



Amaros -> RE: Article: Linguistically Submissive (9/20/2006 7:14:10 PM)

Ouch. If she/he managed to make a point here, I missed it - to submit is to present, surrender, relinquish, yeild, obey. Submission is the act of submiting - yeilding, obeying, etc.

Submissive, is be in the habit of submitting - no?

The author hinted at something here, at deeper cultural reactions to submission and submissive behavior, adn their possible psychological ramifications and reprecussions on the submissive individual - which might also apply to dominance - but gaffed it to indulge in a pseudo intellectual pedantic peeve.

At best, the article hints at a distinction between submission and passivity - submission is, as I've said elsewhere, an act of will, something is being surrendered, not eradicated or dissapearing - passivity is an indifference, and act of complete withdrawl of the will, you just don't give a shit.

If anybody wants to explore the connotations of submission, in contrast to the common cultures worship of dominance, I'm game.

The first concept to explore would be the concept of service: servus, to serve, was a mark of distinction in the early middle ages, all served god, even the Pope (Servus servorum Dei - Servant of the Servants of God) and the Kings were servus - and only became synonomous with weakness - servile is distinctly depreciatory - as the feudal system itself became increasingly more abusive and degenerate, until we have the current situation, where as often as not, truculance is rewarded, while duty is mocked: "dominant" morons are worshipped by servile masses, whose very philosophy requires them to denigrate and belittle the weak they are charged with protecting, while quivering with near sexual ecstasy at the unworthy  boot on their own necks - allright, ok, I'll save it for off topic...

Anybody else? Lady Ellen?



LadyEllen -> RE: Article: Linguistically Submissive (9/21/2006 2:55:50 AM)

Amaros - I'd be glad to add my exceeding wisdom to the thread some more (if I had any that is), but I'm not sure what you're inviting me to add?

The language has changed, and society has changed - and along with it our attitudes towards those in power and authority. No one and nothing is due reverence and respect these days, thats for sure, but then there has been so much exposure of abuse by those in power and authority, those who claimed to be servus, that they and the institutions they represent are no longer due the automatic respect they once had.

And the cascade effect of this is the unfortunate loss of respect for one another amongst the ordinary people too. If the institutions which are meant to be the incorporations of good manners, social etiquette, law and order, civil behaviour and so on, are shown up to be rife with abuse, they naturally lose authority and influence. If the model beings who head and comprise these institutions are so faulty, then so the common thought seems to go, so must be the values and aspirations they were formerly thought to stand for. The result in the UK at least is an entire generation of young people who have not one iota of respect for anyone unless that anyone can kick seven shades out of them, and not one iota of respect for anything unless that anything can do similar.

If anything, it is no longer the masses who quiver under the unworthy boot of those in power - it is the people in whom some element of civilised behaviour remains who quiver under the unworthy boot of the savage new generation that has been created. I live in it, and I know. I am surrounded by these savages, my ten year old son cant go to the shops on his own because of them, we have graffiti, we have shouting and fighting in the street, we have vandalism, petty theft, arson attacks etc. These savages are not afraid of the police either - the justice system has been exposed as so abusive in the past that it is now castrated of any respect or deterrent effect in an effort to solve those abuses - and thats if the police show up at all.

Rant over. I think the point is that there are many different forms of submission;
1) unwilling submission out of fear - as with the savages above who cow everyone they can, and in sexual abuse/rape cases
2) willing submission to rules aimed at bringing about the greater good - the law, manners and etiquette, religious orders etc
3) willing submission to another in a relationship (not just bdsm, its in every relationship even if unspoken!)

That these are not flavours of the same item but distinct types is important. That the language uses the same word for all three is unfortunate perhaps, but thats the way it developed.
E




Amaros -> RE: Article: Linguistically Submissive (9/22/2006 12:19:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Rant over. I think the point is that there are many different forms of submission;
1) unwilling submission out of fear - as with the savages above who cow everyone they can, and in sexual abuse/rape cases
2) willing submission to rules aimed at bringing about the greater good - the law, manners and etiquette, religious orders etc
3) willing submission to another in a relationship (not just bdsm, its in every relationship even if unspoken!)

That these are not flavours of the same item but distinct types is important. That the language uses the same word for all three is unfortunate perhaps, but thats the way it developed.
E


Excellent point, and a good rant, BTW. Idle hands are the devils playground, as the saying goes - though I like to think that describes my bedroom as well [;)]

I was thinking more in terms of how the D/s dynamic translates to the outside world: i.e., does being a submissive in a relationship cause any problems in your social dealings with the outside world?

Different ways to deal with that, I suppose, but for the sake of argument, I'm assuming it's something that for whatever reason, is generally known, i.e., you're out of the closet.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.015625