Sh*t or Sh**t? Which came first?
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
"Nasty Language on Live TV Renews Old Debate.
FCC Takes Heat for Ruling on Adjectival Usage"
By Frank Ahrens
_Washington Post_, December 13, 2003; Page A01
Nicole Richie of the Fox reality show "The Simple Life," prepared to
announce a category of nominees on the Billboard Music Awards on
Wednesday night. Standing alongside was her co-star, hotel heiress Paris
Hilton, who warned: "Now Nicole, remember, this a live show, watch the
bad language."
Richie paid no attention, using a vulgar substitute for the exclamation
"shoot." [...]
------ End quote ------
How's that again? "Shoot!" is the standard exclamation and "Shit!" is a
vulgar substitute?
That _Washington Post_ writer seriously fucked up in his attempt to
avoid writing "shit" or "sh*t" or "s--t" or "s____."
Listen, Mr. Ahrens: The *standard* exclamation is "Shit!" and "Shoot!"
is a *euphemistic substitute*. Got it now?
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
R H Draney
>
>Listen, Mr. Ahrens: The *standard* exclamation is "Shit!"
I'm much too young to remember when the US was on the gold standard, but it's
unfortunate what we've been reduced to....r
andrew
"Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:3FDC0E44...@sonic.net...
> Listen, Mr. Ahrens: The *standard* exclamation is "Shit!" and "Shoot!"
> is a *euphemistic substitute*. Got it now?
>
And "euphemistic substitute" is a *circumlocution* for "euphemism".
Adrian Bailey
I think you'd be better off sticking to your own language.
Adrian
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" wrote:
Do you want to explain your stupid comment, Arschloch?
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
[Essential text snipped by "andrew"]
> > Listen, Mr. Ahrens: The *standard* exclamation is "Shit!" and
> > "Shoot!" is a *euphemistic substitute*. Got it now?
> And "euphemistic substitute" is a *circumlocution* for "euphemism".
If you had read and understood Ahrens's phrasing, you would know why I
wrote "euphemistic substitute" and not "euphemism."
Now go back to my original post and figure out why your comment is
almost as stupid as Adrian Bailey's.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
andrew
>
> If you had read and understood Ahrens's phrasing, you would know why I
> wrote "euphemistic substitute" and not "euphemism."
>
What's there to understand? You wanted to make a rhyme with "vulgar
substitute"? That's no excuse. There is no such thing as a "euphemistic
substitute".
> Now go back to my original post and figure out why your comment is
> almost as stupid as Adrian Bailey's.
>
Now go open a dictionary and find out why "euphemistic substitute" is
complete nonsense.
Adrian Bailey
It's explained by the fact that you need me to explain it.
Adrian
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> > If you had read and understood Ahrens's phrasing, you would
> > know why I wrote "euphemistic substitute" and not "euphemism."
> What's there to understand? You wanted to make a rhyme with
> "vulgar substitute"?
No rhyme. Look at the sentence structure.
> That's no excuse. There is no such thing as a "euphemistic
> substitute".
> > Now go back to my original post and figure out why your
> > comment is almost as stupid as Adrian Bailey's.
> Now go open a dictionary and find out why "euphemistic substitute"
> is complete nonsense.
Sorry, but you're a moron.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Raymond S. Wise
news:20031214123134...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> Rey:
>
> >That _Washington Post_ writer seriously fucked up in his attempt to
> >avoid writing "shit" or "sh*t" or "s--t" or "s____."
> >
> >Listen, Mr. Ahrens: The *standard* exclamation is "Shit!" and "Shoot!"
> >is a *euphemistic substitute*. Got it now?
>
It's
> so unlike you. But, anyway, I don't see how what the writer said was
wrong.
I think Rey's subject line was brilliant. He both mocked the idea that
"shit" was a substitute for "shoot" by showing the "o"s in "shoot" being
replaced by asterisks, as the "i" in "shit" often is in newspapers and
magazines, and he avoided his post not getting through to the reader because
some filter, either that of the reader or that of the reader's ISP, would
reject it.
> He didn't call either "shit" or "shoot" a "standard". He just said one
was
> substituted for the other, which is true. Who cares which one came first?
I do, for one. I read the item Rey quoted as saying that "shit" was a
substitute for "shoot," with the implication that "shoot" came first. If the
item causes even one person to believe that "shoot" was the original term,
that's one person too many, as I'm sure Rey agrees.
Then there is the question of "standard." The exclamation "Shit!" is
certainly not standard in the sense that it is taught in the schools, used
in court, or used in most newspapers and magazines. However, there is the
use of "standard" to mean, as Webster's online dictionary at www.m-w.com
puts it, "something established by authority, custom, or general consent as
a model or example." Just imagine if, among a group of people inclined to
use strong language, one of them were to say "Shoot!" instead. The others
would look around to see what caused the speaker to use that particular
term, such as his grandmother who didn't care for strong language being
present. If no such circumstances were apparent, the speaker would likely be
mocked for violating customary practice. This is true even when all the
speakers involved are native speakers of a standard dialect of English:
"Shoot!" just isn't "real swearing."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Ah, another C**per. You're a slimy, slippery weasel, Bailey. I asked
you for *facts*, for an *explanation*, but you're unable to substantiate
your snide and stupid comment and thus weasel out with your snippy-bitch reply.
The moment you stuck your face into AUE, I knew you'd be one more
asshole (German: _Arschloch_), and you have not disappointed me and others.
BTW, your "Was hieltest du davon?" in <alt.usage.german> marks you as a
foreigner. No German uses such stilted lingo. You'd be better off
sticking to your own language.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
andrew
> andrew wrote:
>
> > Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
>
> > > If you had read and understood Ahrens's phrasing, you would
> > > know why I wrote "euphemistic substitute" and not "euphemism."
>
> > What's there to understand? You wanted to make a rhyme with
> > "vulgar substitute"?
>
> No rhyme. Look at the sentence structure.
>
"vulgar substitute". Duh. I'll repeat myself:
> > That's no excuse. There is no such thing as a "euphemistic
> > substitute".
>
I was wrong when I said "euphemistic substitute" was a circumlocution. It's
actually complete nonsense. There is no such thing.
Raymond S. Wise
> Raymond:
>
> >I do, for one. I read the item Rey quoted as saying that "shit" was a
> >substitute for "shoot," with the implication that "shoot" came first.
>
> something being a "substitute" for something else would imply that the one
> that's being substituted for came first. Someone new can substitute for
> something old, AND vice-versa. Right?
"Substitute" does not mean simply "one thing used for another." It carries
the connotation of a usual thing being temporarily or in limited
circumstances replaced by something which is not usual, thus "substitute
teacher" and "coffee substitute." In particular, euphemisms substitute for
expressions which might offend.
"Shit!" isn't a "vulgar substitute" for "Shoot!" but the latter is instead a
euphemistic substitute for the former.
>
> >Then there is the question of "standard." The exclamation "Shit!" is
> >certainly not standard in the sense that it is taught in the schools,
used
> >in court, or used in most newspapers and magazines.
>
> Rey said that the writer was wrong for not stating that "shit" WAS the
> standard.
No, Rey did not. He criticized the writer for having said "Richie paid no
attention, using a vulgar substitute for the exclamation 'shoot.'" which
suggests that "Shoot!" came first and "Shit!" was coined later as a
substitute for it.
As for what Rey himself believes, he did indeed say "The *standard*
exclamation is 'Shit!' and 'Shoot!' is a *euphemistic substitute*." We have
to ask what Rey meant by "standard" as he used it here. I don't believe for
a second that he meant it was "taught in the schools, used in court, or used
in most newspapers and magazines" and would be surprised if you believed
that that's what he meant. No, he was using "standard" with another meaning,
as I discussed in my previous post.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> DE781 wrote:
> > Raymond:
> > >I do, for one. I read the item Rey quoted as saying that "shit" was a
> > >substitute for "shoot," with the implication that "shoot" came first.
> > But doesn't "substitute" just mean "substitute"? I don't understand why
> > something being a "substitute" for something else would imply that the one
> > that's being substituted for came first. Someone new can substitute for
> > something old, AND vice-versa. Right?
> "Substitute" does not mean simply "one thing used for another." It carries
> the connotation of a usual thing being temporarily or in limited
> circumstances replaced by something which is not usual, thus "substitute
> teacher" and "coffee substitute." In particular, euphemisms substitute for
> expressions which might offend.
>
> "Shit!" isn't a "vulgar substitute" for "Shoot!" but the latter is instead a
> euphemistic substitute for the former.
Precisely. Why some AUE morons (not Joey) can't understand this simple
concept is beyond me. The taboo words *always* exist first; euphemisms
replacing them are created later. That _Washington Post_ writer turned
reality 180 degrees upside-down, and that's why I objected and brought
it to your attention. Some examples:
TABOO Exclamations SUBSTITUTES (euphemisms)
----------------------------------------------------------
Shit! ................. Shoot!, Shucks!, Sugar!
Jesus! ................ Jeez! Jeez Louise!
Christ! ............... Cripes! Criminy!
Jesus Christ! ......... Cheese and crackers! (W.C. Fields)
God! .................. Golly! Gosh!
Goddamn! .............. Golldarn!
> > >Then there is the question of "standard." The exclamation "Shit!" is
> > >certainly not standard in the sense that it is taught in the schools,
> > >used in court, or used in most newspapers and magazines.
> > Rey said that the writer was wrong for not stating that "shit" WAS
> > the standard.
> No, Rey did not. He criticized the writer for having said "Richie paid no
> attention, using a vulgar substitute for the exclamation 'shoot.'" which
> suggests that "Shoot!" came first and "Shit!" was coined later as a
> substitute for it.
>
> As for what Rey himself believes, he did indeed say "The *standard*
> exclamation is 'Shit!' and 'Shoot!' is a *euphemistic substitute*." We have
> to ask what Rey meant by "standard" as he used it here. I don't believe for
> a second that he meant it was "taught in the schools, used in court, or used
> in most newspapers and magazines" and would be surprised if you believed
> that that's what he meant. No, he was using "standard" with another meaning,
> as I discussed in my previous post.
You're correct again, Raymond. "Shit!" and "Oh, shit!" are the
*standard* (= most common, most frequent, usual) exclamations, whereas
"Shoot!" and similar euphemisms ("Shucks!", "Sugar!" "Sheesh!") are used
by people who don't use "Shit!" in public or at all and under certain
circumstances where "Shit!" would be inappropriate.
It's been documented -- there is/was also a site on the Web about
airplane crashes with black-box transcriptions -- that the most common
last words exclaimed by airplane pilots who are about to crash and die
are "Shit!" and "Oh, shit!" No "Shoot!" there.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
R J Valentine
[The very heart and soul of the posting have been snipped.]
} How's that again? "Shoot!" is the standard exclamation and "Shit!" is a
} vulgar substitute?
It puts a whole nother twist on the "Eats shoots and leaves" joke, though.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:ar...@wicked.smart.net>
Raymond S. Wise
news:3FDD307C...@sonic.net...
Even more euphemistic: "Gee!"
> Christ! ............... Cripes! Criminy!
> Jesus Christ! ......... Cheese and crackers! (W.C. Fields)
> God! .................. Golly! Gosh!
> Goddamn! .............. Golldarn!
And for "Goddamn it!" there's "Goldarnit!" "Goldurnit!" and "Goshdarnit!"
Chris Hewitt, movie critic for the *St. Paul Pioneer Press,* recently wrote
a review of the movie *Gothika,* in which he showed his disappointment by,
among other things, giving the review the title "Gothdarnit!"
--
R J Valentine
[Snipped to the quick thusly:]
...
} TABOO Exclamations SUBSTITUTES (euphemisms)
} ----------------------------------------------------------
} Shit! ................. Shoot!, Shucks!, Sugar!
} Jesus! ................ Jeez! Jeez Louise!
...
} You're correct again, Raymond. "Shit!" and "Oh, shit!" are the
} *standard* (= most common, most frequent, usual) exclamations, whereas
} "Shoot!" and similar euphemisms ("Shucks!", "Sugar!" "Sheesh!") are used
} by people who don't use "Shit!" in public or at all and under certain
} circumstances where "Shit!" would be inappropriate.
...
I suggest that you've got "Sheesh!" in the wrong box.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Raymond S. Wise
> Raymond:
>
> >"Substitute" does not mean simply "one thing used for another." It
carries
> >the connotation of a usual thing being temporarily or in limited
> >circumstances replaced by something which is not usual, thus "substitute
> >teacher" and "coffee substitute." In particular, euphemisms substitute
for
> >expressions which might offend.
> >
> >"Shit!" isn't a "vulgar substitute" for "Shoot!" but the latter is
instead a
> >euphemistic substitute for the former.
>
"shoot"
> simply because "shit" was the original, more usual term and "shoot" sort
of
> evolved off of it (as a euphemism)?
Do you understand the difference between "definition" and "connotation"?
>
> >> Rey said that the writer was wrong for not stating that "shit" WAS the
> >> standard.
> >
> >
> >No, Rey did not. He criticized the writer for having said "Richie paid no
> >attention, using a vulgar substitute for the exclamation 'shoot.'" which
> >suggests that "Shoot!" came first and "Shit!" was coined later as a
> >substitute for it.
>
> Yes, he did mention "shit" being the standard, as you admit below:
I suggest you reread what I wrote and consider the inappropriateness of your
use of "admit" here. I did not contradict myself. I wrote "No, Rey did not."
in answer to a specific point, and "No, Rey did not." remains the correct
answer to that point.
>
> >As for what Rey himself believes, he did indeed say "The *standard*
> >exclamation is 'Shit!' and 'Shoot!' is a *euphemistic substitute*.
>
> >We have
> >to ask what Rey meant by "standard" as he used it here. I don't believe
for
> >a second that he meant it was "taught in the schools, used in court, or
used
> >in most newspapers and magazines" and would be surprised if you believed
> >that that's what he meant.
>
> Nope. I think he most likely meant the original, more usual term, out of
which
> the other evolved (i.e. the one being substituted for).
Ben Zimmer
>
[much snippage]
> The taboo words *always* exist first; euphemisms
> replacing them are created later. That _Washington Post_ writer turned
> reality 180 degrees upside-down, and that's why I objected and brought
> it to your attention.
I take your point, Rey, but what what do you make of the OED's note for
the interjection _shoot_:
An arbitrary alteration of SHIT int.
In some instances this may perh. be regarded as an
imp. use of SHOOT v. 11j.
And here's def. 11j of the verb _shoot_:
To discard, get rid of; orig. in _shoot that hat_, etc.,
as a mild imprecation.
1877 in Bartlett Dict. Amer. (ed. 4) 586 One lady..with
derisive scorn..observed in the language of the day, 'Oh,
shoot that hat!'.. The slang the gang is using now, You'll
hear from every lip; It's shoot the hat! and get it boiled;
And don't you lose your grip.
[...]
1902 FARMER & HENLEY Slang VI. 188/1 Shoot that (hat,
man--anything)!..a mild imprecation, 'Bother!'
The definition of the interjection _shoot_ given in Webster's Second
(1934) also supports the idea that it was thought of as an imperative:
_Shoot_, interj. Pshaw! Bother! often with _it_.
So could imperative _shoot_ have developed on its own track (e.g.,
_shoot that hat_ > _shoot it_ > _shoot_), only later becoming a
euphemism for _shit_? I'm reminded of our discussion of _fouled up_,
which may have had slightly earlier senses ('befouled, clogged up')
before serving as a euphemism for _fucked up_ [1]. It seems that when
expressions like "shoot" and "fouled up" get pressed into service as
euphemisms, sometimes their preexisting senses get lost in the shuffle.
Of course, it's often hard to know how long such terms have been
considered euphemistic substitutes rather than (or in addition to) being
understood as free-standing expressions, since before the mid-20th
century few would dare say in print what exactly was being euphemized.
[1]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EB6B784...@midway.uchicago.edu
Jerry Friedman
I suspect your emphasized "always" goes too far. No doubt the taboo
exclamations in your table above came before the euphemisms, but is
there evidence that the development was "Where the fuck", then "Where
(in) (the) hell", and lastly "Where in the world"?
--
Jerry Friedman
Ben Zimmer
>
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<3FDD307C...@sonic.net>...
> >The taboo words *always* exist first; euphemisms
> > replacing them are created later. That _Washington Post_ writer turned
> > reality 180 degrees upside-down, and that's why I objected and brought
> > it to your attention. Some examples:
> >
> > TABOO Exclamations SUBSTITUTES (euphemisms)
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Shit! ................. Shoot!, Shucks!, Sugar!
> > Jesus! ................ Jeez! Jeez Louise!
> > Christ! ............... Cripes! Criminy!
> > Jesus Christ! ......... Cheese and crackers! (W.C. Fields)
> > God! .................. Golly! Gosh!
> > Goddamn! .............. Golldarn!
> ...
>
> I suspect your emphasized "always" goes too far. No doubt the taboo
> exclamations in your table above came before the euphemisms, but is
> there evidence that the development was "Where the fuck", then "Where
> (in) (the) hell", and lastly "Where in the world"?
FWIW, the OED suggests that the earliest such expression was
"who/what/when/where/how the devil" (later euphemized as "...the deuce"
or "...the dickens"), based on a French exclamation:
App. taken directly from Fr.; cf. 12th c. OF. _comment
diables! dist li rois au vis fier_; _diables_ being in
the nominative (= vocative case); mod.F. _que diable
faire!_; in ME. also _what devil_, about 1600 often
_what a devil_. Also in Ger., Du., Da. and other langs.
Thomas F. Howald
If they are Arab pilots, they sometimes may exclaim "Allahu Akbar!"
Thomas F. Howald
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> [much snippage]
Yes, that's very possible.
> I'm reminded of our discussion of _fouled up_, which may have had
> slightly earlier senses ('befouled, clogged up') before serving as
> a euphemism for _fucked up_ [1]. It seems that when expressions
> like "shoot" and "fouled up" get pressed into service as euphemisms,
> sometimes their preexisting senses get lost in the shuffle.
> Of course, it's often hard to know how long such terms have been
> considered euphemistic substitutes rather than (or in addition to)
> being understood as free-standing expressions, since before the mid-
> 20th century few would dare say in print what exactly was being
> euphemized.
>
> [1]
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EB6B784...@midway.uchicago.edu
I've heard adult males exclaim "Shoot!" even when there were no women or
children around. It's a good internal-pressure-releasing exclamation,
starting with a voiceless sibilant (of various length), followed by a
long, dark, gruff vowel, and ending in an aspirated voiceless stop
[Su:t]. "Shit!" [SIt] is different, shorter (unless dragged out as "Shee-yit!").
I don't know whether today's "Shoot!" is derived from that now
silly-sounding "Shoot that hat!" or whether it developed independently
as an utterance of frustration *not* derived from or influenced by
"Shit!" and not being a substitute for it.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
[...]
> > > "Shit!" isn't a "vulgar substitute" for "Shoot!" but the latter
> > > is instead a euphemistic substitute for the former.
> > Precisely. Why some AUE morons (not Joey) can't understand this
> > simple concept is beyond me. The taboo words *always* exist first;
> > euphemisms replacing them are created later. That _Washington Post_
> > writer turned reality 180 degrees upside-down, and that's why I
> > objected and brought it to your attention. Some examples:
> >
> > TABOO Exclamations SUBSTITUTES (euphemisms)
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Shit! ................. Shoot!, Shucks!, Sugar!
> > Jesus! ................ Jeez! Jeez Louise!
> > Christ! ............... Cripes! Criminy!
> > Jesus Christ! ......... Cheese and crackers! (W.C. Fields)
> > God! .................. Golly! Gosh!
> > Goddamn! .............. Golldarn!
> ...
> I suspect your emphasized "always" goes too far.
I don't think so; I referred to taboo *words*, not to phrases.
> No doubt the taboo exclamations in
> your table above came before the euphemisms, but is there
> evidence that the development was "Where the fuck", then
> "Where (in) (the) hell", and lastly "Where in the world"?
I don't believe the progression was FUCK > HELL > WORLD but that the
three phrases developed independently, or at least the last one did.
"Where in the world is...?" has alliteration [w...w] and is a logical
sentence. "Where the fuck is...?" is merely "Where is...?" intensified
with "the fuck."
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
DOYLE60
>> > Jesus! ................ Jeez! Jeez Louise!
>> > Christ! ............... Cripes! Criminy!
>> > Jesus Christ! ......... Cheese and crackers! (W.C. Fields)
>> > God! .................. Golly! Gosh!
>> > Goddamn! .............. Golldarn!
Hell! ................... Heck!
Fuck!....................Fooey!
Fuck!....................Freak! (?)
Matt
Michael Sollins
which is a euphemism for fuckin'.
Any comments on that?
Mike Sollins
CyberCypher
2003:
> I've occasionally wondered whether freakin' is a euphemism for
> friggin' which is a euphemism for fuckin'.
> Any comments on that?
I always thought it was. Once, when I was 9, I think, my father picked
me up in his car after I had finished fishing at a local pond. Somehow,
I got involved with a honeybee, which I killed, but the stinger was
still there and it tooks its revenge on me. I screamed out "Freakin'
bee!" My father, who used to be proud that he had never said "fuck" in
front of me or my sister when we were kids, was very unhappy with me
because he thought I had said "fuckin' bee". It's not much of a
euphemism for "fuckin'": too close for comfort.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
Jerry Friedman
> Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> > > Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > "Shit!" isn't a "vulgar substitute" for "Shoot!" but the latter
> > > > is instead a euphemistic substitute for the former.
>
> > > Precisely. Why some AUE morons (not Joey) can't understand this
> > > simple concept is beyond me. The taboo words *always* exist first;
> > > euphemisms replacing them are created later. That _Washington Post_
> > > writer turned reality 180 degrees upside-down, and that's why I
> > > objected and brought it to your attention. Some examples:
> > >
> > > TABOO Exclamations SUBSTITUTES (euphemisms)
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Shit! ................. Shoot!, Shucks!, Sugar!
> > > Jesus! ................ Jeez! Jeez Louise!
> > > Christ! ............... Cripes! Criminy!
> > > Jesus Christ! ......... Cheese and crackers! (W.C. Fields)
> > > God! .................. Golly! Gosh!
> > > Goddamn! .............. Golldarn!
> > ...
>
> > I suspect your emphasized "always" goes too far.
>
> I don't think so; I referred to taboo *words*, not to phrases.
Okay, here are some examples:
A friend of mine used to (and may still) say "Where the devil", etc.
According to Ben Zimmer and the OED, this seems to be the oldest
version, but it's now milder than some others.
I'd consider "smart-alec" a euphemism for "smart-ass". According to
the NSOED, "smart-alec" dates to the mid 19th century, and "smart-ass"
or "smart-arse" dates to the mid 20th. I'd consider those to be
single words, not phrases, though I see room for disagreement.
(Similarly I think the centuries-older "wiseacre" is now heard as a
euphemism for "wise-ass"--but I don't hear it much at all.)
"Stuff" meaning illegal drugs dates to the early 20th century; "shit"
in that sense dates to the mid 20th. Maybe someone with a full OED
could tell us how close the dates are--this might be a case where the
first attestations don't prove anything about the first colloquial
use. People often use "stuff" as a euphemism (with an obvious pause)
for "shit" as an unspecified noun and shit--I'll bet "stuff" is
earlier in that sense. Unfortunately, the NSOED entry for "shit" is
pretty poor and doesn't include that sense.
> > No doubt the taboo exclamations in
> > your table above came before the euphemisms, but is there
> > evidence that the development was "Where the fuck", then
> > "Where (in) (the) hell", and lastly "Where in the world"?
>
> I don't believe the progression was FUCK > HELL > WORLD but that the
> three phrases developed independently, or at least the last one did.
> "Where in the world is...?" has alliteration [w...w] and is a logical
> sentence.
As is "where on earth", though without the alliteration.
> "Where the fuck is...?" is merely "Where is...?" intensified
> with "the fuck."
Now that Ben Zimmer has offered a reasonable source for
intensification with "the fuck" (a dysphemism for "the devil"), I
can't argue.
--
Jerry Friedman
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> TABOO Exclamations SUBSTITUTES (euphemisms)
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Shit! ................. Shoot!, Shucks!, Sugar!
> Jesus! ................ Jeez! Jeez Louise!
> Christ! ............... Cripes! Criminy!
> Jesus Christ! ......... Cheese and crackers! (W.C. Fields)
> God! .................. Golly! Gosh!
> Goddamn! .............. Golldarn!
Devil! ................ Dickens!
CyberCypher
> Chink:
>
>>I screamed out "Freakin'
>>bee!" My father, who used to be proud that he had never said
>>"fuck" in front of me or my sister when we were kids, was very
>>unhappy with me because he thought I had said "fuckin' bee". It's
>>not much of a euphemism for "fuckin'": too close for comfort.
>
> It don't sound nothing like "fuck"!
You had to be there.
> Yo' chink father must've been deaf o' some shit! Maybe his
> Chinkese hearin' got in da way of dem thangs!
>
You are amazing, YJ. A bigger asshole than Tiger Turd. Are you going to
send your minstrel-show black-face pix to the AUE gallery. It's just a
myth that all African Americans talk that way and a flat-out self-
deception for you to believe that you can write realistic dialog in
that idiom. Give it up and use the trash talk you've been using since
you got here. At least it's honest.