Reply
Mon 8 Dec, 2003 06:25 pm
A question that I have often asked myself is why certain words in the English language come with a negative connation attached. Why is the f-word any different from other words that have the meaning of copulation
Before we continue, take this into account. If I were to take the word "schiezer" (which is the German equivalent of "****") and use it in my everyday speech instead of the word "crap," no one would even care. It is because those syllables do not have the same meaning that the word "****" does. But if I were to go to Germany, schiezer would elicit the exact same reproach as "****" does here in America.
So meanings of words are not universal. They only have the meanings that we as human beings give them. If I believe that the f-word has no significant meaning past that which I give it, then in my eyes, it will not. But language is not decided by one, but rather by a collective.
The question here is why words that have comparable meanings come with such definitive sub-text. Why is it acceptable for a mother to say "crap" and not "****?" Why is it ok for a first-grader to say "dang" instead of "damn?" Why are parts of the English language off-limits until one is older.
I understand that a comparable analogy would be that pornography and some substances have the same basic restrictions. But in both of those examples, the item that is being with held is with held for a purpose and they could each have damaging consequences on the child if they were unregulated.
On the other hand, there is other a social stigma that regulates profanity in the English language. Consider this. At some point in the future, today's profanity will be common speech. Along with this move, there will most likely be another: a new set of "cusswords."
So why are we holding back? Why do we not embrace every facet of our language? Is it something inherent in human beings? Or is something inherent in our society? Will it ever change? Do we really want it to change?
Or maybe the very concept of a bad and good part of our language is ingrained in the way we think. To have words that are off-limits helps us to fully express ourselves when we have feelings that cannot be expressed by every day speech.
Any thoughts?
It's a social construction about what's proper and what's not. A consensus, as Ceili said.
There was uproar, 60 years ago, when Rett Butler said the word "damn" on the screen.
Now you have "Good Will Hunting", almost a family film, filled with the F word.
The German student within me cries out that, technically, if you went to Germany and said "schiezer", no one would have the slightest idea what you were talking about. . . since Scheiße means "****", and the only thing close to yours, Scheißer, means shithead, essentially. . .
But that's just the German major talking. . . other than that, consensus, like everyone else :-)
Because they're meant to be rude. The meaning that has been assigned to them is inherently negative.
I wouldn't be suprised by that either.
When I was a child calling some one a barmaid was an insult. Its use caused me to taste mustard at least once. Apparently barmaid had been a euphemism for prostitute. The negative connotation outlasted that meaning but disappeared when women bartenders became the norm.
I expect this use was confined to Australia perhaps even South Australia. It reflects the prejudice against women frequenting hotel bars that was prevalent in this country. The word was "bad" by association. I believe many words are considered bad because they are evocative of the body part or function they describe.
It's all about just being civil to one another, according to societal custom. The f word is unique, and personally, I like it, as it can be used in so many ways, so many parts of speech. However, I wouldn't go tell my mother to go f herself.
What you'll often find is that short words are considered rude ("****"), and long and complicated words ("excrement") are considered fine.
If you delve into a language like Japanese, you'll find that this system is even built into the politeness levels of the language:
kuu - Colloquial
taberu - Casual
tabemasu - Polite
A word like "fuck" simply isn't fancy enough to describe a concept like sex, and so it's considered rude. I think the whole "think of the children" concept is more a result of present-day American hysteria and remnants from Victorian times than any actual trend in most English-speaking societies.
True, Rounin. Do you know some Japanese? You and my brother, screen name mezzie, should hook up in the language forum. The f word comes from "for unlawful carnal knowledge" which at one time, abbreviated, was stamped on convicted adulteresses.
Oh yeah, I've seen him, the guy with the kaonashi avatar from sento chihiro.
Not too much going on in the Japanese thread now, but it's steadily progressing.
Rounin,
I think you expect too much of the word. It suggests urgency and impulse, the need to commit the act. I agree it is primitive and devoid of emotion but this is its strength. It does not describe complex human sexuality but evokes the frantic urgency of the act.
Hey cav, I didn't know you and mezzie were, ya know, related :-)
Cav, you know the etymology of the f-word thing is a hoax, right? It came up here at some point. (Couldn't tell if you were being ironic.)
The only thing I haven't seen addressed so far, though Cav touched on it, is that "bad" words have a purpose for the speaker. The short, forceful fricatives (or whatever the word is) are satisfying in terms of expressions of frustration or disgust. It took me a while after I became a mom to stop reflexively yelling "F***!" when I hurt myself -- it's just the most satisfying expression of anger/ frustration/ "Ouch!". That's just about the structure of the word itself as well as the meaning.
The sound structure of a word has nothing to do with its falling into taboo use; otherwise "shuck" (for you oyster lovers out there) and "fit" (perfectly innocuous) would burn our ears as much as their spoonerized brothers.
The sound structure of taboo words obviously differs from language to language (offhand, I don't know of any language where the taboo words have a general tendency towards a specific shape, though one might exist), but also what concepts count as taboo can be radically different. English taboo words tend to have to do with bodily functions and sex, but many Quebec French taboo words are church-related (but just as strong!).
For a couple of neat references, try:
1. 'Swearing' - Geoffrey Hughes
2. 'The anatomy of swearing' - Ashley Montagu
"as well as", mezzie. Not saying it's the only thing, saying it's an aspect.
Yeah, I was being ironic. Actually, the first use of the word seems to date back to 1503, in a poem by William Dunbar. Here are the first two stanzas:
In secreit place this hindir nycht
I hard ane bern say till a bricht:
My hunny, my houp, my hairt, my heill,
I haif bene lang your lufar leill
And can yow gett confort nane;
How lang will ye with denger deill?
Ye brek my hart, my bony ane.
His bony berd wes kemd and croppit
Bot all with kaill it was bedroppit
And he was townsyche, peirt and gukkit. He clappit fast, he kist, he chukkit
As with the glaikkis he were ourgane--
Yit be his feiris he wald haif fukkit:
Ye brek my hairt, my bony ane.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace