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/infamousin fa mous
adj
Definition of INFAMOUS1: 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=12879863301a:
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.)