1095. Is “sick” really “good”? This week, we look at how words flip their meanings and why language changes over time. Then, we look at the 1950s idea of "U and Non-U English" and what it tells us about social climbing.
1095. Is “sick” really “good”? This week, we explore how words flip their meanings and why language changes over time. Then, we look at the 1950s idea of "U and Non-U English" and what it tells us about social climbing.
The "sick" segment was written by Natalie Schilling, a professor emerita of linguistics at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, and who runs a forensic linguistics consulting firm. You can find her on LinkedIn.
The "posh" segment was by Karen Lunde, a former Quick & Dirty Tips editor and digital pioneer who's been spinning words into gold since before cat videos ruled the internet. She created one of the first online writing workshops, and she's published thousands of articles on the art of writing. These days, she leads personal narrative writing retreats and helps writers find their voice. Visit her at ChanterelleStoryStudio.com.
🔗 Share your familect recording in a WhatsApp chat.
🔗 Watch my LinkedIn Learning writing courses.
🔗 Subscribe to the newsletter.
🔗 Take our advertising survey.
🔗 Get the edited transcript.
🔗 Get Grammar Girl books.
🔗 Join Grammarpalooza. Get ad-free and bonus episodes at Apple Podcasts or Subtext. Learn more about the difference.
| HOST: Mignon Fogarty
| VOICEMAIL: 833-214-GIRL (833-214-4475).
| Grammar Girl is part of the Quick and Dirty Tips podcast network.
| Theme music by Catherine Rannus.
| Grammar Girl Social Media: YouTube. TikTok. Facebook.Threads. Instagram. LinkedIn. Mastodon. Bluesky.
Grammar Girl here. I’m Mignon Fogarty, your friendly guide to the English language. Today, we're going to talk about why people use the word "sick" to mean "good," and then we'll talk about an idea from the 1950s that tried to identify social climbers by their language.
by Natalie Schilling
Are you sick of hearing people say things like, “I just loved that movie; it was sick!” or “What a good meal; the dessert was sick!” and they don’t mean that the food made them nauseated or that the movie was about evil people with twisted minds? They’re actually using “sick” to mean “great.” And “sick” isn’t alone. There are other words whose literal meanings are negative that people – mostly young people – use to express positive feelings, for example, “dope,” “dank,” and “sick"’s synonym, “ill.”
How does this happen? How do words like “sick” come to mean the opposite of what they literally mean? Do slang usages like this spell the doom of the English language? And how do we get kids these days to stop turning meanings on their heads?
Well, it turns out that usages like “sick” for “great” are nothing new. The process of using words to mean their opposite has been going on for decades, in fact centuries, to the point where sometimes word meanings flip in official usage, not just in slang. The word “bad” was used to mean “good,” in a “cool” way, for much of the 20th century. It first appeared on the jazz scene in the 1920s and reached its apex in the 1980s, when Michael Jackson's hit song reminded the world that, as a musician and performer, he was indeed “Bad.” The 1980s also brought us “ill,” which spread from hip-hop culture into wider circulation, as well as “wicked,” and “gnarly,” which probably came from surfers and skateboarders looking for rad new ways to describe good things like well-formed waves and perfectly executed maneuvers on the boards. “Sick” itself also seems to be from those 1980s surfers. All sorts of “killer” new slang!
Going back in time, did you know that the perfectly nice word “nice” used to have negative meanings like “silly” and “foolish” and only gradually acquired its current positive connotations, having at various times evolved to mean “timid,” “precise or careful,” and then finally “pleasant.”
There’s also “terrific,” which went from meaning “terrifying” to “awesome,” though “awesome” has also changed its meaning in a different way. It was originally used to describe things that are majestic and awe-inspiring but can now be applied to just about anything we’re feeling good about, including movies, restaurant meals, and Michael Jackson songs.
In addition to adjectives, nouns have gone from negative or neutral to more positive meanings. For example, “knight” (K-N-I-G-H-T) used to mean “servant,” while “earl” was a somewhat neutral term for “man,” but of course, like “knight,” an earl is now a man with a title.
Word meanings are slippery, and they can also get more negative over time. We don’t really use the word “knave” much anymore, but if we did, we’d use it to refer to a bad guy of some type, a criminal or a scoundrel. But in its original usage, it meant simply “boy,” and then, a bit later, “serving boy.” And the now rather negative adjective “silly” used to mean “happy” and even pious or blessed.
Words associated with women have often historically taken on negative connotations. “Hussy” originally comes from “housewife,” the mistress of a household. “Mistress” itself was originally simply the female version of “master,” but it's been used since the 15th century to refer to the female companion of a married man – “the other woman.”
The meaning c cting words like “hussy” and “mistress,” and also, for that matter, “wench,” which used to simply mean “girl,” show that there’s a close connection between language and social values. If you historically devalue a particular group — in this case, women — then the words you use to describe them may start out being neutral but then gradually become more negative.
On the plus side, once you start viewing groups more positively, the words used to describe them are often given a more positive meaning — sometimes by group members themselves. For example, the word “queer,” originally meaning strange or odd, was used to derogatorily refer to homosexuals but was then reclaimed by the community as a positive label.
And back to women’s groups, in the early 1900s, when suffragists were fighting for women’s right to vote, a male newspaper reporter in England coined the term “suffragette” in an effort to belittle the movement. But the word with the “-ette” ending, which usually indicates smallness, was quickly taken up by certain suffragists, particularly those who used militant tactics, to prove that “suffragettes” weren’t in the least bit small and dainty but instead meant business. Talk about using a word, or in this case, a word ending or suffix, to mean its opposite!
Linguists have terms for all these slippery meaning shifts. “Amelioration” is when words take on more positive meanings, as with “knight,” and “nice,” and “pejoration” is when words become more negative or pejorative, as with “knave” or “awful,” a word that used to mean awe-inspiring but now is just plain terrible.
And when a word comes to mean its complete opposite, as with “ill,” “sick,” and “bad,” that’s called “semantic inversion.” These are all common processes that have been operating in English since it became its own language, and so far, they haven’t hurt it, and English is still a major world language.
It's a well-established principle in linguistics that, for the most part, the relationship between words and meanings is arbitrary — in English, we use the word “bread” to refer to loaves made of flour, but in Spanish we use a different word, “pan,” and in Russian “xleb.” (Sorry if I mispronounced that.) Not to mention that in slang, the word “bread” or “dough” can also be used to mean “money.” Since there’s no essential relationship between the strings of sounds that make up words and the objects they refer to, meanings shift, from bad to good, or good to bad, and sometimes back again.
Word meanings also shift along with shifting social norms. When women are looked down upon, “mistresses” and “wenches” become bad people. But when women start gaining power, then even “suffragettes” look strong.
And people also purposely change meanings. Young people innovated new uses for “sick” and “ill,” and before that for “bad,” “gnarly,” and “killer,” to indicate that they’re in with a particular in-crowd — and to signal that those who don’t get the slang meanings are most definitely in the out-group.
Specific slang terms may come and go, but slang itself and semantic inversion are long-standing features of language that are here to stay. As kids of each new generation learn the language of their community and culture, they reinvent it, adding new words and new meanings and dispensing with the old. Fifty years from now, it will no longer be “sick” to say things like “The movie was sick.” Only time will tell what new inversions will be regarded as best, or should I say “baddest.”
RELATED TOPICS:
When "nice" was bad and "bully" was good
That segment was written by Natalie Schilling, a professor emerita of linguistics at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, and who runs a forensic linguistics consulting firm. You can find her on LinkedIn.
by Karen Lunde
Imagine walking into a posh British dinner party in the 1950s and committing a social faux pas — calling your "looking-glass" a "mirror" or, heaven forbid, referring to your "napkin" as a "serviette." In post-war Britain, these seemingly innocent word choices could instantly reveal your social class.
In 1954, Professor Alan S. C. Ross, a linguist at the University of Birmingham, published his observations about language in a Finnish academic journal, noting that the upper classes often used simpler words. Here's an example: A genuine aristocrat might say they were "sick." But someone aspiring to sound sophisticated would carefully proclaim they were "ill." This phenomenon came to be known as U and Non-U English, where the letter "U" stood for upper-class usage and "Non-U" for words favored by social climbers.
This academic observation might have remained confined to linguistic circles if not for Nancy Mitford. She was a writer known for her sharp wit, and she was also an aristocrat. Mitford transformed Ross's research into a cultural phenomenon with her 1954 essay on the topic. She even created a glossary of U versus Non-U terms, based in part on Ross's list.
You may not be surprised to learn that Mitford's list accomplished the 1950s version of "going viral." People in Britain were both fascinated by it and anxious about what their language said about them. Post-war Britain was in the middle of some massive social changes. Rationing had just ended, new housing developments were sprouting up everywhere, and suddenly people who'd never dreamed of social mobility were finding themselves with opportunities to climb the social ladder.
Magazines and newspapers had a field day with Mitford's list, analyzing every possible word choice, while anxious hosts across Britain fretted over whether to offer their guests "jam" or "preserves" at tea time. (In case you're wondering, U speakers served "jam" while Non-U folks served "preserves.")
So, what do these U and non-U words look like in practice? The differences almost seem counterintuitive. The "U" (or upper class) speakers might have defaulted to simpler words because they felt secure in their station — they didn't need ornamental language to signal to everyone they were affluent.
Here are a few classic examples that come from both Ross's research and Mitford's essay:
The U speakers rode "bikes," while Non-U speakers rode "cycles."
If you were going to a party, a non-U speaker might say they were headed to "Bob and Nancy's 'home.'" But the U speaker would just say "Bob and Nancy's 'house.'"
A non-U speaker would politely ask "How's your cup?" But in an affluent person's home you'd hear, "Have some more tea?" According to Ross, some possible negative non-U answers include: "I'm doing nicely, thank you" or "Quite sufficient, thank you." But if you do want tea? Ross says: "There is a well-known non-U affirmative answer: "I don't mind if I do."
At dinner time, a wealthy person would serve "pudding" as a final treat, but those who lacked silver place settings and fine China would call it a "sweet" or "dessert." (And by the way, the upper class Brit called dessert "pudding" even if it was, say, chocolate cake. That's not much different from southern American dialects where most carbonated beverages are called "coke," even if they're orange soda.)
And here's my favorite. You may have been told it's just good manners to say "Pardon?" if you didn't quite catch what someone said to you. But in 1950s British society, that would've marked you as Non-U. A true member of the upper crust would've blurted "What?" without a second thought.
What makes these distinctions so interesting is how they flip our usual assumptions about formal versus informal language. We tend to think fancier words equal higher status — that's why so many of us still pepper our résumés with words like "utilize" instead of "use" or "commence" instead of "begin." But in U-speaking circles, using fancier-sounding words was seen as trying too hard.
So, do we still have U and non-U anxiety today? Well, not in the same way. Many of these distinctions evolved or faded over time, but we haven't entirely given up trying to sound fancier or more correct than we are. We sometimes fall into another linguistic trap — hypercorrection, which is making grammar errors because we think the fancier-sounding phrase is correct. For example, we might find ourselves saying things like "between you and I" when "between you and me" is actually corre he memo to Bob and myself," again, when "Send the memo to Bob and me," is actually correct.
In the end, maybe what's most fascinating about the U and non-U phenomenon isn't just what it tells us about 1950s Britain but what it reveals about human nature. Whether we're aware of it or not, we're constantly navigating our social lives through language.
That segment was by Karen Lunde, a former Quick & Dirty Tips editor and digital pioneer who's been spinning words into gold since before cat videos ruled the internet. She created one of the first online writing workshops, and she's published thousands of articles on the art of writing. These days, she leads personal narrative writing retreats and helps writers find their voice. Visit her at ChanterelleStoryStudio.com.
Finally, I have a familect story from Debbie.
Hey, Mignon, it's Debbie from Wilmington, North Carolina, calling with several familect words. When my daughter was small, we were discussing shampooing her hair. She looked at the shampoo bottle and said, "Hairpoo." We've used "hairpoo" ever since because, well, it makes perfectly good sense.
When she was slightly older, I gave her a dirty look as a reprimand for some bad behavior, and she said, "Mama, you misunderseed me." We've used it ever since because not only can you be misunderstood, you can certainly be misunderseed as well.
Lastly, when my brother was little and wanted more watermelon, he'd say, "Woggin, more woggin." We’ve used it ever since, because, well, it's just cute. Thanks. Enjoy.
Thanks, Debbie! I particularly love "misunderseed." We can definitely misundersee things!
I would love to hear your familect too. You can send me a recording of a made-up word you use only with your family or friends leaving a message on the voicemail line at 83-321-4-GIRL or leaving a voice message on WhatsApp. Be sure to call from somewhere quiet, and if you want that number or link later, they're in the show notes.
Grammar Girl is a Quick and Dirty Tips podcast, and we have lots of other shows. This week, the Savvy Psychologist is talking about why it's so hard to make friends as an adult, and what you can do about it. Here's a little clip:
We need to talk. Because a lot of y’all are lonely. You’re scrolling, hearting and liking your favorite creators, lurking in your group chats but still feeling disconnected.
Let’s name it: making and keeping friends is harder than ever, even though we’re more “connected” than any generation before us. It’s not just you. It’s the times, the trauma, and the tiny talk that never gets deep.
So, let’s unpack this. I’ll break down the psychological, societal, and emotional reasons friendship feels so hard these days, and then I’ll walk you through real strategies to build meaningful connections without the awkward icebreakers or pretending you love whatever the latest microtend is.
That episode drops tomorrow, and again, that's the Savvy Psychologist.
Thanks to Morgan Christianson in advertising; Holly Hutchings, director of podcasts; Nat Hoopes in Marketing; and Dan Feierabend in audio, who has a weakness for mystery grab bags.
And I'm Mignon Fogarty, better known as Grammar Girl and author of the tip-a-day book "The Grammar Daily." That's all. Thanks for listening.