Forums → The Tavern → [necro]What is Notoriety? Here is an Answer
| 18 | 11072 |
I feel the need to debate this. It seems as if everyone is associating notoriety solely with being bad. This ins not necessarily true.
Here is the Merriam-Webster dictionary Definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notoriety
no·to·ri·e·ty
noun
plural no·to·ri·e·ties
Definition of NOTORIETY
1: the quality or state of being notorious
2: a notorious person
Examples of NOTORIETY
1. He achieved instant fame and notoriety with the release of his film.
2. She gained notoriety when photographs of her appeared in a magazine.
3. His comment about the President has given him a notoriety that he enjoys very much.
Origin of NOTORIETY
Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French notoriet, from Medieval Latin notorietat-, notorietas, from notorius
First Known Use: circa 1650
Related to NOTORIETY
Synonyms: big name, cause (also cause celebre), celeb, figure, icon (also ikon), light, luminary, megastar, name, notability, notable, celebrity, personage, personality, somebody, standout, star, superstar, VIP
Antonyms: nobody, noncelebrity
Related Words: favorite, heartthrob, hero, idol; demigod, dignitary, eminence, immortal, monument, pillar, worthy; baron, big shot, bigwig, kahuna, magnate, mogul, nabob, panjandrum
Near Antonyms: lightweight, mediocrity; has-been
Notice the antonyms for notoriety are noncelebrity and nobody and the near antonyms are mediocrity and has been. As well as the fact that the some of the synonyms include celebrity, star, and VIP.
This would hint at the fact that notoriety is a good thing to have.
However this iswhat alphaDictionary has to say:
http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/notoriety
Notes: Today's Good Word is a good example of the difference between a word and its usage. Notoriety by itself simply means "famous, well-known"; however, it is used most often to refer to that which is known for its bad qualities, e.g. a notorious criminal. This makes the use of this word quite tricky since its connotations tend to be pejorative. Notoriety is the noun for the adjective notorious.
So for example the adjective form of notoriety, notorious, is somewhat a neutral term, that has come to be associated with bad things). Notorious is a descriptive adjective being placed in front of a noun or person or event. The word notorious tells you that that noun, person, or event is well known, but it is the noun, person, or event that tells whether or not it was a good or bad thing.
- 18 Replies
What's to debate? The definition of a word is often not completely accurate in comparison to how the word is applied, yet it is the accepted meaning and most common application of a word which gives it its meaning. Ergo, notorious has negative connotations because that is the most widely accepted and used form of the term.
What Walker (if I may refer to you with that name?) said, pretty much. It is how it is most commonly used, thus people think of it as negative rather than neutral.
It is not just in English either, though, while it is not used a lot in Danish, it might have just a mild negative feel to it, it is worse in English, which I assume you could also see from the replies you received when you proposed the idea.
It's how language works, pretty much. It is alive and changes.
What Walker (if I may refer to you with that name?
Of course, that's what everyone calls me.
If you got technical the new definition of Notoriety could be considered slang.
Yeah it definitely is used almost solely with negative connotation today. I'm just a bit frustrated that no one bothered to acknowledge that it is the modern day usage of the term that gives it it's negative connotation, not the definition of the term.
I'm frustrated because it's like people don't even realize what the term is and then assume I'm wrong because notoriety is "negative", which is untrue.
To assume the word itself is always negative like infamy (or infamous) is incorrect. You could never use the word infamous in a positive light and be correct because by definition it is a negative word. However, notoriety can still be used in a positive way.
Example:
- Incorrect:"He gained some minor infamy in the music industry after his top ten hit."
- Correct: "He gained some minor notoriety in the music industry after his top ten hit."
I think the key word is "Can" in that last sentence. Fact is, people don't use it like that, which, while it doesn't make you wrong, doesn't make them wrong in assuming it is negative either, because that is the meaning the word is moving towards.
Also, infamy could be used like that, especially when it comes to certain artists or books that people like to rant about a lot. The more popular it gets, the more infamous it gets alongside it.
Aye Walker. There have been other examples of terms which lost their original meanings. Don't ask me right now.
These days, almost everyone refers to notoriety as ill fame. Thus, a new definition is effectively being developed if it already isn't.
Sorry if I'm coming off as mad. I just wanted let people know that the definition of the word has yet to be replaced as solely a negative word. Although, it would have been a poor choice of a word to use in replacement of karma because how it is most often used negatively. I just wanted you to recognize that I haven't used the word out of context.
Had I suggested infamy it would be a poor replacement because the definition of the word is negative.
If infamy was chosen, to replace karma, users would have been gaining points in a negative point system for doing positive things.
If notoriety was chosen, to replace karma, users would have been gaining points in a neutrally named point system for doing positive things, but users would only be misinterpreting the system as negative because of the common usage of the word, NOT BECAUSE OF IT"S DEFINITION (which they would be unaware of.)
There can be good karma and bad karma.
There can be good reputation and bad reputation.
There can be good notoriety and bad notoriety.
There can not be good infamy and bad infamy. It would be redundant to say bad infamy because infamy is already bad and it would be some sort of oxymoron to say good infamy.
Karma, reputation, and notoriety, are all neutral based systems. So you couldn't exclude notoriety by saying it is a positive word, but now is being used more and more as a negative word. It is neutral. However, honor would be positive. you can't have bad honor. Although it would still work because would gain honor points for doing positive things and lose them for doing negative things.
Is notoriety a poor choice. Yes! But not because it's technically wrong, but due to modern usage. And just because it is used almost solely that way doesn't change it's definition. People say "that's cool" or "that's sweet" often today. As in that event was fun, interesting, enjoyable. Does it mean the word sweet now means the word fun. Does it mean the word cool now means the word enjoyable. "Hey this food is sort of cool." Does not mean "Hey this food is enjoyable." Just because modern usage dictates that cool is comparable to enjoyable, nice, or fun, doesn't mean that cool has lost it's definition as a qualitative way of measuring temperature. The same with notoriety. It's definition is still neutral, even though modern usage dictates that it's usage is most often negative.
There can not be good infamy and bad infamy. It would be redundant to say bad infamy because infamy is already bad and it would be some sort of oxymoron to say good infamy.
Any publicity is good publicity.
And I think a few rappers would be go differ. Being infamous can be a good thing to some. Because that can mean fear, for example.
Also, bad honour is called dishonour.
And yes, it is still the definition, you just can't fight people's minds. As said earlier, language is fluid and alive. Words gain and loose meanings all the time, or is forgotten in our passive vocabulary.
Also, I don't consider karma to be any good either, in its right sense. But again, because it is used like it is these days, it can become "neutral".
To do the same as you and use the dictionary response, it is the traditionally meaning, which is "what you do in this life will affect you in the next" and then "fate/destiny", neither something fitting, right? Nor really neutral.
It looks like I just started a revolution.
I dont really see the need to debate this, notoriety can mean good and bad, done.
Notoriety is also a common "morals" game element nowadays. It is present in such games like Fable 2, Red Dead Red., Oblivion, Fallout 3, Overlord 2, even some of GTA4's choices could be linked to notoriety.
WAIT! WAIT MAJOR FAIL!! I spelled notoriety wrong in the title. Which can only prove, I can't even spell what I'm trying to define. (So much for my argument looking strong). What is noteriety? Nothing because it's not a word.
I still like presence, prominence, power, notoriety, or prestige. Although, swag, bling, or crunk would be ganstalicous!
It was on page 11, of the "New Names for Karma" That I mentioned notoriety. (The post had some joke suggestions as well.) It was the first time it was mentioned in the that thread (unless it was mention earlier but misspelled, like how I failed to spell it correctly in the title). Maybe it was mentioned somewhere else earlier, but that would be hard for me to find.
Anyway, I want to be clear that I'm not mad (but I should say angry lol) at the people who said that notoriety would be negative. They're definitely correct. I just wanted to let them know that it still holds it's neutral meaning (although maybe not for too much longer) in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I guess I just felt like I was being told I was incorrect when it was pointed it out as negative.
Any publicity is good publicity.
And I think a few rappers would be go differ. Being infamous can be a good thing to some. Because that can mean fear, for example.
See but it's not the infamy that was positive.
It was the publicity that was positive.
The artist does a negative act.
The negative act is noticed and publicized.
The publicity from the negative act causes the artist to become more popular.
The artist is popular because of the publicizing of a negative act, and therefore the artists reputation is negative.
The negative reputation is the infamy.
It's not the infamy that is being perceived as good by the artist. It's the publicity, popularity, (and possibly increased record sales, profits, etc.) that the artist is considering good.
You still don't have positive infamy. You have the public saying negative publicity, the artist saying positive publicity. The publicity is neutral. The infamy is negative. The artist would say I am famous for these acts if they assumed what they did was good.
Had the act been a positive thing. It would simply be stated that the artist became famous.
The definition of infamy in the Merriam_Webster dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infamous
in fa mous
adj
Definition of INFAMOUS
1: having a reputation of the worst kind : notoriously evil <an infamous traitor>
2: causing or bringing infamy : disgraceful <an infamous crime>
3: convicted of an offense bringing infamy
- in·fa mous ly adverb
Examples of INFAMOUS
1. a city infamous for poverty and crime
2. He committed an infamous crime.
Origin of INFAMOUS
Middle English, from Latin infamis, from in fama fame
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to INFAMOUS
Synonyms: discreditable, disgraceful, dishonorable, ignominious, disreputable, louche, notorious, opprobrious, shady, shameful, shoddy, shy, unrespectable
Antonyms: honorable, reputable, respectable
Notice the first definition says "notoriously evil". If notorious were a solely negative word the definition would need only say "notorious". That would convey both that they are evil and well known. But here "evil" conveys the negative. "Notorious" conveys the popularity or the "how well known". When combined infamy, known for being bad.
Also, bad honour is called dishonour.
But honour is a positive thing. Dishonour is negative thing. If honour were neutral, the term dishonour would not be neccessary. Good honour and bad honour would be used instead. Bad fame is called infamy. It just so happens that it is becoming related to a negative thing.
The definition of the prefix dis according to Merriam-Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dis?show=4&t=1287986330
1a: do the opposite of <disestablish>
b: deprive of (a specified quality, rank, or object) <disfranchise>
How can you do the opposite of a neutral thing. Therefore honour has to be positive. There is no such thing as disnotoeriety, or inotoeriety, because notoriety is neutral.
But then again, when you really think about it. All the words are just symbols that are often related to sounds that convey ideas, places, objects, etc. And really it is a group of people who are saying these words mean this. So it seems arbitrary to argue what a word means when it can change meaning in the future. Then this argument boils down to relativity. "Who is to say what word, means what?" Yet at the same time, the words still have meanings that are recognized by majorities of people. Certain set of words with agreed upon definitions, used by a number of people, is a language. A smaller group of people then declare the language as official and determine what proper definition for each word in the set of words should be.
(I just find this interesting. I guess.)
Sorry, tl; dr. I haven't slept.
But what I am trying to communicate is that infamy could bring good things to people, even if it is still infamy. Like fear in some cases. It does not redefine it, it is simply just a matter of perspective.
And I think honour has two definitions. One being the overall word, the other being the actual honour, that be the arrow upwards, which would be the opposite of dishonour. You could have an honour system, sure, like you could have a fame system, or a notoriety system. All there is is that the downside would be called something different. Dishonour, infamy, fx. While notority... doesn't. Bad notoriety?
"Wow, you just lost a lot of notoriety with that outburst, the who forum is talking about it!" would even be oxymoronic....
Idk, I am writing about methodology anyway, and shouldn't be replying.
Thread is locked!