From drh4321 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 13 07:40:03 2009
From: drh4321 at gmail.com (Daniel Henry)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:40:03 +0000
Subject: [Bups-dis] The Paradox of Swearing
References: <87001543-9481-4EE0-96D2-01DEC50D4214@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DBFE3B84-80A3-4063-9256-ADF50F99FF9E@gmail.com>

> I think that it's only a paradox if you over-estimate the importance  
> of etymology.
> See language as it acually functions and it's what you expect from  
> word usage.
> Shit, crap, poo and excrement all refer to the exact same thing but  
> all have different meanings down to how we tend to apply them.
> Shit is the most offensive purely out of our custom for using it  
> that way.
>
> That said, the point that they needed to have an original offense in  
> order to become swear words in the first place was pretty interesting.
> I think "Cow" implies that all the woman is good for is eating,  
> breeding and being milked.
> Although farmyard metaphors probably wouldn't be so popular nowdays  
> so I think this insult holds out of tradition.
>
> What kind of insults do you think would arise out of modern values?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 8 Aug 2008, at 13:06, josh seigal  
> <joshuaseigal1986 at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS at bups.org
>> -
>>
>>
>> George Orwell, in ?Down and Out in Paris and London?, drew my  
>> attention to a curious paradox that seems to be at the heart of us 
>> ing swear words. I would be most grateful to hear any views that a 
>> nyone may have on this subject.
>>
>> The paradox (if indeed that is the correct term for it) seems to be  
>> this: a word becomes an oath because it means a certain thing, but  
>> once it has become an oath it seems to lose the very meaning that  
>> made it into an oath in the first place.
>>
>> Let me elucidate: the word ?fuck? was originally considered rude  
>> and shocking because it pertained to something which (at the time) 
>>  was thought should be kept secret (namely, the sexual functions). 
>>  However, once the word became an oath it in effect ceased to mean 
>>  this at all; it became simply that ? an oath. As Orwell says (p15 
>> 7): ?The Londoners do not now use, or very seldom use, this word i 
>> n its original meaning; it is on their lips from morning till nigh 
>> t, but it is merely an expletive and means nothing.?
>>
>> Similarly with insults. A word becomes an insult because it means  
>> something bad, but once it has become well established as an insult  
>> it loses this meaning and becomes insulting simply by dint of being  
>> intended as an insult. Take the word ?bastard?: originally this  
>> was thought of as a heinous insult because of the religious sin as 
>> sociated with having a child out of wedlock. However, nowadays it  
>> is arguable that most people do not consider this a ?sin?, and  
>> yet the word ?bastard? retains its insult-value. Thus, the word  
>> became an insult because of what it means, but nowadays, having be 
>> en firmly established as an insult, the word has in effect lost it 
>> s meaning. It is now simply that ? an insult.
>>
>> Other insults are insulting seemingly in spite of what they mean.  
>> Thus, calling a woman a ?cow? is offensive in spite of the fact  
>> that, as Orwell says (p158), ?cows are amongst the most likeable o 
>> f animals.? The word is an insult simply because it is intended as 
>>  an insult, not because of what the word means.
>> What do people think of these things? I am interested to hear your  
>> views.
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Win New York holidays with Kellogg?s & Live Search
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571440/direct/01/
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> -
>> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the  
>> mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml