Has the word "humor" shifted meaning?
The original meaning of humor of course refers to the obsolete theory of the four humors and their effect on human temperament. I'm not asking about that.
It appears that initially, the meaning shifted from any behavior, to a specific type of behavior that we may call (or have called in recent history) "convivial", "congenial" or "agreeable". It is not uncommon to assume that a hallmark of a person who is agreeable would be a readiness to engage in jokes and playfulness, and most like to be around such people, so it is not hard to see how it came to be said that such people have "good humor" (pleasant character).
Nowadays we use sense of humor to mean the ability to share and appreciate funny things. It's possible in modern parlance for a person to have an excellent sense of humor and yet be an abstruse, unlikable curmudgeon. Indeed, many successful comedians are reportedly very unpleasant in private, do not have "good humor", and are bad at getting along and hard to get along with. We even have a concept of a person who tells bad jokes (annoying, offensive, unfunny) and consequently is unpleasant to be around.
Is this a true shift in meaning, in that the concept of a taste or liking for funny things is legitimately divorced from being a good sport? Or is it in fact the same word (always meaning "good character") but the shift (towards dramatically more elitism and quid-pro-quo/transactionalism) has been in what society considers good character?
0 answers
0 comment threads