The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable: one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone ‘a gentleman’ you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not ‘a gentleman’ you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said- so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully- ‘Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?’ They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man ‘a gentleman’ in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is ‘a gentleman’ becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object; it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A ‘nice’ meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object; it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object.
This is because a speaker’s attitude towards an object is not formed by the speaker’s perception of the object; it is entirely arbitrary. Wait, no, that’s not right.
And anyway, the previous use of the term “gentleman” was, in some sense, worse. Because while it had a neutral denotation (“A gentleman is any person who possesses these two qualities”), it had a non-neutral connotation.
From your link: Sense of “gracious, kind” (now obsolete) first recorded late 13c.; that of “mild, tender” is 1550s.
This is, of course, exactly what the halo effect would predict; a word that means “good” in some context should come to mean “good” in other contexts. The same effect explains the euphemism treadmill, as a word that refers to a disfavored group is treated as an insult.
“Gentleman,” “gentle” etc do not come from Hebrew.
Maybe you are thinking about the fact that “gentile” comes from the sense “someone from one of the nations (other than Israel),” just as Hebrew goy originally meant “nation” (including the nation of Israel or any other), and came to mean “someone from one of the (other) nations.”
“Gentile” was formed as a calque from Hebrew.
But none of these come from a Hebrew root. Rather, they all come from the Latin gens, gentis “clan, tribe, people,” thence “nation.” Same root as gene, for that mater.
C.S. Lewis (emphasis my own)
This is because a speaker’s attitude towards an object is not formed by the speaker’s perception of the object; it is entirely arbitrary. Wait, no, that’s not right.
And anyway, the previous use of the term “gentleman” was, in some sense, worse. Because while it had a neutral denotation (“A gentleman is any person who possesses these two qualities”), it had a non-neutral connotation.
That would be true if the word “gentle” meant the same thing then as it does now. Which it didn’t
The word originally comes from the ancient (not modern) meaning of Hebrew goy: nation.
EDIT: the last statement is incorrect, see replies.
From your link: Sense of “gracious, kind” (now obsolete) first recorded late 13c.; that of “mild, tender” is 1550s.
This is, of course, exactly what the halo effect would predict; a word that means “good” in some context should come to mean “good” in other contexts. The same effect explains the euphemism treadmill, as a word that refers to a disfavored group is treated as an insult.
“Gentleman,” “gentle” etc do not come from Hebrew.
Maybe you are thinking about the fact that “gentile” comes from the sense “someone from one of the nations (other than Israel),” just as Hebrew goy originally meant “nation” (including the nation of Israel or any other), and came to mean “someone from one of the (other) nations.”
“Gentile” was formed as a calque from Hebrew.
But none of these come from a Hebrew root. Rather, they all come from the Latin gens, gentis “clan, tribe, people,” thence “nation.” Same root as gene, for that mater.
Right, my bad, it was translated from Hebrew, but does not come directly from it:
You can make it correct but still informative by replacing “originally comes from” with “was originally a calque of”.
So Lewis grants that people really can be brave, honorable, and courteous, but then denies that calling someone so is descriptive?
This passage does’t make any sense.
I suspect his attitude is more along the lines of ‘noise to signal ratio too high.’