hmm thats really interesting. it kinda shows how the bible can still be used in todays world
interesting thing READ inside
- Thread starter Atown
- Start date
Shagz
New Member
For those of you interested in a bit of the history of swearing, or just the English language in general (both British AND North American dialects), I just finished reading a chapter on swearing in a book titled "The Mother Tongue: English and How it got that way" by Bill Bryson. It's a *little* dated (published in 1990) and not incredibly exhaustive in its research, but the tidbits of info stored therein are quite neat and good for summer reading.
For example, the word I just used - "tidbit" - is actually derived from the Old English word "titbit". It was altered during the 19th century because of the first syllabal in the word was considered crude, though the word as a whole meant nothing crude at all. (The 19th century apparently was a time that was known for it's extremely prudish thinking, at least according to this book. One anecdote puts it nicely when a young man assists a woman who has just fallen and inquires if she "hurt her leg" in the fall. The woman blushes and states that in America, they "don't use that word." She thought "limbs" was more prudent).
Anyways, the chapter on swearing is quite interesting because it just shows how swear words have fallen in and out fashion, and lost their meaning. What was considered profane in the past ("zooterkins", "puppy" and "cad") seems pretty silly today.
It's cultural as well. In North America, we tend to throw around words that we've picked up from Britain via Austin Powers ("shagadelic", "bird", "bloody", etc.) or other British films that Powers' parodies. They're pretty powerless (forgive the pun) and relatively innocent over here, but in Britain some people might give you a pretty strong look if you said "bloody <something>". (Rizz and other Brits can correct me if this information is out of date)
ANYWAYS...this is all beside the point. I think Kidian summed it up by saying the word isn't important, it's the intention. I just thought people might be interested in that book, it's a really great read.
What will be interesting to see is how the English language changes in the next 50 years (if I/any of us live that long). Will some of the four letter words in use today lose their meaning and emotion? Time will tell...
For example, the word I just used - "tidbit" - is actually derived from the Old English word "titbit". It was altered during the 19th century because of the first syllabal in the word was considered crude, though the word as a whole meant nothing crude at all. (The 19th century apparently was a time that was known for it's extremely prudish thinking, at least according to this book. One anecdote puts it nicely when a young man assists a woman who has just fallen and inquires if she "hurt her leg" in the fall. The woman blushes and states that in America, they "don't use that word." She thought "limbs" was more prudent).
Anyways, the chapter on swearing is quite interesting because it just shows how swear words have fallen in and out fashion, and lost their meaning. What was considered profane in the past ("zooterkins", "puppy" and "cad") seems pretty silly today.
It's cultural as well. In North America, we tend to throw around words that we've picked up from Britain via Austin Powers ("shagadelic", "bird", "bloody", etc.) or other British films that Powers' parodies. They're pretty powerless (forgive the pun) and relatively innocent over here, but in Britain some people might give you a pretty strong look if you said "bloody <something>". (Rizz and other Brits can correct me if this information is out of date)
ANYWAYS...this is all beside the point. I think Kidian summed it up by saying the word isn't important, it's the intention. I just thought people might be interested in that book, it's a really great read.
What will be interesting to see is how the English language changes in the next 50 years (if I/any of us live that long). Will some of the four letter words in use today lose their meaning and emotion? Time will tell...
Grand Master
New Member
I would agree that the intention behind the word is what is important. But that doesn't matter to most of the people who are offended by "swearing" because they have this idea ingrained in their heads that there are certain "bad" words you shouldn't ever say, no matter what the context is. There is nothing inherently evil about any word. I mean, really, if bump my elbow into a post, is there any difference in me saying "Oh fudge" rather than "Oh f**k"? No, there isn't.
K
Katarn85
Guest
I guess this illustrates that differences between people. Unlike CCGR, I have no real problem with crap, but do have a problem with h*ll (when used in THAT context, that is).
CCGR
Member
I guess we're opposites
Shagz
New Member
[b said:
Yea, there's a few paragraphs dedicated to euphenisms (sp?) like described above. Even words like "sugar", "shucks", "gee", "gosh", "By George", "frick", and "fudge", they're all euphenisms for other words. We know what they mean, but we consider them more acceptable because they aren't *really* swear words. Those around you will consider it more acceptable to say "Oh sugar" when you stub your toe, although everybody knows what you *really* meant to say.
Uh...I think I had a point, but I don't remember it.
I guess it was just to highlight other common euphenisms of whose origins people might not be aware of.