The finger
Allan Adler
I'm reading Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars in the Penguin Classics edition,
translated by Robert Graves with revisions by Michael Grant, whose job
it was to contain Graves' proclivities for invention.
In number 45 of the biography of Augustus, which discusses Augustus'
relationship to the "entertainment industry", Suetonius says that
Augustus "expelled Pylades not only from Rome, but from Italy too,
because when a spectator started to hiss, he called the attention
of the whole audience to him with an obscene movement of his middle
finger."
It is easy to conjecture that the gesture Suetonius describes is still
in use today. What I would like to know is whether this is the earliest
attested use of this particular kineme of body language.
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler
a...@zurich.ai.mit.edu
****************************************************************************
* *
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT Artificial *
* Intelligence Lab. My actions and comments do not reflect *
* in any way on MIT. Moreover, I am nowhere near the Boston *
* metropolitan area. *
* *
****************************************************************************
Douglas G. Kilday
"Allan Adler" <a...@nestle.ai.mit.edu> wrote in message ...
>
> I'm reading Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars in the Penguin Classics edition,
> translated by Robert Graves with revisions by Michael Grant, whose job
> it was to contain Graves' proclivities for invention.
>
> In number 45 of the biography of Augustus, which discusses Augustus'
> relationship to the "entertainment industry", Suetonius says that
> Augustus "expelled Pylades not only from Rome, but from Italy too,
> because when a spectator started to hiss, he called the attention
> of the whole audience to him with an obscene movement of his middle
> finger."
>
> It is easy to conjecture that the gesture Suetonius describes is still
> in use today. What I would like to know is whether this is the earliest
> attested use of this particular kineme of body language.
First, note that Grant failed to contain Graves' proclivities in this
passage. Suetonius says nothing about an obscene movement of Pylades' middle
finger. He says "Nam histrionum licentiam adeo compescuit ut ... Pyladen
urbe atque Italia summoverit, quod spectatorem, a quo exsibilibatur,
demonstrasset digito conspicuumque fecisset." (For he [Augustus] so greatly
curbed the freedom of stage-actors that ... he banished Pylades from the
city and even from Italy, because [as Augustus charged] whenever Pylades was
hissed off the stage by a spectator, he pointed out the spectator with his
finger and made him conspicuous.) Pointing out, demonstrating, is usually
done with the index finger. Had Pylades used the middle finger, one would
expect Suetonius to specify "digito medio", "digito infami", or "digito
impudico".
The definitive passage involving the middle-finger gesture is in Martial,
Epigrammata 2:28. "Rideto multum qui te, Sextille, cinaedum / dixerit et
digitum porrigito medium." (Let him laugh much, Sextillus, whoever has
called you a cinaedus, and let him extend his middle finger.) What the poets
meant by "cinaedus" can be inferred from usages in Plautus and Catullus as
'soft, effeminate man who takes a passive sexual role'; in the rest of this
epigram Martial excludes an active sexual role for Sextillus, who is neither
a "pedico" (pederast) nor a "fututor" (fu**er). The term was borrowed from
Greek, where it was used somewhat differently; in Plato (Gorgias 494E)
"kínaidos" means something like 'lewd fellow': "... ho tôn kinaído:n bíos,
hoûtos ou deinòs kaì aiskhròs kaì áthlios;" (... the life of the kinaidoi,
is this not fearful, disgraceful, and wretched?) The original sense of the
noun "kínaidos" was probably 'lewd dancer' or the like, as it appears to be
a substantivized compound adjective of the V+N type meaning
'genital-shaking' (kineîn 'to set in motion', aidoîa 'pudenda, genitalia').
Suetonius does record a practice in Caligula 56 which may be safely
interpreted as making the middle-finger gesture to label one a "cinaedus".
"Cum placuisset Palatinis ludis spectaculo egressum meridie adgredi, primas
sibi partes Cassius Chaerea tribunus cohortis praetoriae depoposcit, quem
Gaius seniorem jam et mollem et effeminatum denotare omni probro consuerat
et modo signum petenti 'Priapum' aut 'Venerem' dare, modo ex aliqua causa
agenti gratias osculandam manum offerre formatam commotamque in obscaenum
modum." (When [the conspirators] had decided to attack [Caligula] during the
Palatine games as he exited the spectacle at noon, Cassius Chaerea, tribune
of the praetorian guard, demanded the leading role for himself, whom,
already a senior [i.e. over 45], Gaius [Caligula] was accustomed to labeling
with every reproach as soft and effeminate, sometimes giving him as
passwords 'Priapus' or 'Venus', sometimes offering his hand to be kissed,
shaped and thrust in an obscene manner, when Chaerea gave his thanks for
anything.)
Suetonius' use of "formatam commotamque" indicates that the complete gesture
involved not only extending the finger, but thrusting the hand toward the
man being insulted as a "cinaedus". The gesture was thus very similar to the
one found today in North America, but its meaning was different. It was
along the lines of a man calling another man a "bitch" or mocking his speech
and comportment as feminine. The modern gesture connotes simple disrespect
or, at most, defiance. A T-shirt popular about 25 years ago portrayed a
doomed mouse giving the middle-finger gesture to an eagle with the caption
THE LAST GREAT ACT OF DEFIANCE. In reality, of course, such a gesture toward
a predator would be an act of futility.
DGK
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> Sextillus, who is neither a "pedico" (pederast)
> nor a "fututor" (fu**er).
Thank you for your excellent information -- but why is Latin "fucker"
(_fututor_) spelled out and English "fucker" (_fu**er_) euphemized?
Aren't the days of super-prudish 19th-century scholars (_membrum
virile_, _virgula_, etc.) finally beh*nd us?
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
M A L E D I C T A
P.O. Box 14123
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/finger.html
cdstrand
> Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
> > Sextillus, who is neither a "pedico" (pederast)
> > nor a "fututor" (fu**er).
> Thank you for your excellent information -- but why is Latin "fucker"
> (_fututor_) spelled out and English "fucker" (_fu**er_) euphemized?
> Aren't the days of super-prudish 19th-century scholars (_membrum
> virile_, _virgula_, etc.) finally beh*nd us?
Surely this isn't a serious question.
The definition of fututor is not euphemized, euphemization would, if I
right, involve defining the word as something like "sexual actor" or
"copulator". There must be some word (can we coin one, if not?) for
substituting astricks for letters in order not to offend those who
know what the word means with or without the astricks and confound
only that class that knows what the word means with the actual letters
and not with the astricks.
I don't mean this to be mean-spirited, I laughed so hard when I read
your comments (the original ones were only slightly amusing) I can say
it lightened my entire day.
Ron Hardin
> > Thank you for your excellent information -- but why is Latin "fucker"
> > (_fututor_) spelled out and English "fucker" (_fu**er_) euphemized?
>
> > Aren't the days of super-prudish 19th-century scholars (_membrum
> > virile_, _virgula_, etc.) finally beh*nd us?
The point of taboo words is that _enables_ you to be rude. The rudeness
is almost backwards from what you'd think.
A taboo word makes a claim of relationship between speaker and hearer; it
is felt as coloring the entire utterance, and merely making a convenience
of grammar (what the fuck are you bloody well doing?). ``Bloody'' is not
adverbial in function here, nor is ``the fuck'' adjectival. Those are just
the classes required where the words are put.
It's rude when such a relationship has not been granted by the hearer;
which is why (the FCC no longer knows this, thinking it has to do with
the referent of the word) ``fuck'' is not allowed on the radio: you could
stumble into it without granting the necessary relationship to allow it.
The shock of one of rudeness not reference.
Such words are an enormous convenience when you want to be rude, and every
language invents them. They don't have the same referent at all, however.
That's not their point.
So it's not prudishness at all; there are prudes but that's not the reason.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Rich Alderson
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<3FC912DE...@sonic.net>...
>> Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
>>> Sextillus, who is neither a "pedico" (pederast)
>>> nor a "fututor" (fu**er).
>> Thank you for your excellent information -- but why is Latin "fucker"
>> (_fututor_) spelled out and English "fucker" (_fu**er_) euphemized?
>> Aren't the days of super-prudish 19th-century scholars (_membrum
>> virile_, _virgula_, etc.) finally beh*nd us?
> Surely this isn't a serious question.
> The definition of fututor is not euphemized, euphemization would, if I
> right, involve defining the word as something like "sexual actor" or
> "copulator". There must be some word (can we coin one, if not?) for
> substituting astricks for letters in order not to offend those who
> know what the word means with or without the astricks and confound
> only that class that knows what the word means with the actual letters
> and not with the astricks.
My first thought was "bowdlerization", but of course Bowdler would have simply
dropped any section which contained such words from the final product, leaving
no trace such as an asterisk.
> I don't mean this to be mean-spirited, I laughed so hard when I read
> your comments (the original ones were only slightly amusing) I can say
> it lightened my entire day.
In the same spirit, I'll offer the following, not originally a mnemonic poem,
for the name of the asterisk:
Mary had a little Porsche;
She drove it very brisk!
Wasn't she a silly sort,
Her little * ?
--
Rich Alderson | /"\ ASCII ribbon |
ne...@alderson.users.panix.com | \ / campaign against |
"You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." | x HTML mail and |
--Death, of the Endless | / \ postings |
Brian M. Scott
news:c97106b3.03120...@posting.google.com in
sci.lang:
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:<3FC912DE...@sonic.net>...
>> Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
>> > Sextillus, who is neither a "pedico" (pederast)
>> > nor a "fututor" (fu**er).
>> Thank you for your excellent information -- but why is
>> Latin "fucker" (_fututor_) spelled out and English
>> "fucker" (_fu**er_) euphemized?
>> Aren't the days of super-prudish 19th-century scholars
>> (_membrum virile_, _virgula_, etc.) finally beh*nd us?
> Surely this isn't a serious question.
Why not? 'Euphemized' isn't precisely correct, but the
insertion of the asterisks is silly.
[...]
Brian
Ron Hardin
> Why not? 'Euphemized' isn't precisely correct, but the
> insertion of the asterisks is silly.
The point of the asterisks is to acknowledge the rule that the
plain word is meant to violate, namely that there must be a relationship
that the hearer has granted to the speaker; and the asterisks avoid
claiming that, while still allowing the word. So it is no longer rude.
The referent is not part of the game at all, so it does not need to
be concealed, and the asterisks do not conceal it.
Brian M. Scott
news:3FCBAC...@mindspring.com in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> Why not? 'Euphemized' isn't precisely correct, but the
>> insertion of the asterisks is silly.
> The point of the asterisks is to acknowledge the rule that
> the plain word is meant to violate, namely that there must
> be a relationship that the hearer has granted to the
> speaker; and the asterisks avoid claiming that, while still
> allowing the word. So it is no longer rude.
In this context it wasn't rude in the first place. The
asterisks are silly.
[...]
Jacques Guy
> In this context it wasn't rude in the first place. The
> asterisks are silly.
Look, if I want to discuss the... the... I just have
use asterisks, lest ... er... Cthulhu rises from
his slumber. Ph**st*s D*s* anyone? That wasn't
meant to be rude, was it? In fact, there is nothing
rude about the ... thingie in question (except my
latest decipherment of it of course, but I've got
a dirty mind: King Minos by copulating with Ariadne
produced the mackerels in the sea, Zeus by copulating
with Ariadne produced the birds and the bees, Ulysses
by copulating with Ariadne produced Mickey, the mouse
and the pad, Ariadne by copulating with Sappho
produced Ariadne...)
Peter T. Daniels
> In the same spirit, I'll offer the following, not originally a mnemonic poem,
> for the name of the asterisk:
>
> Mary had a little Porsche;
> She drove it very brisk!
> Wasn't she a silly sort,
> Her little * ?
The star key is called the "Nathan Hale," in recognition of his Famous
Last Words: "My only regret is that I have but one ..."
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> > Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
> > > Sextillus, who is neither a "pedico" (pederast)
> > > nor a "fututor" (fu**er).
> > Thank you for your excellent information -- but why is Latin "fucker"
> > (_fututor_) spelled out and English "fucker" (_fu**er_) euphemized?
> > Aren't the days of super-prudish 19th-century scholars
> > (_membrum virile_, _virgula_, etc.) finally beh*nd us?
> Surely this isn't a serious question.
It certainly is. I've been fighting silly euphemisms in scholarly works
and publications for hoi polloi ("family" newspapers in particular) for
about 40 years.
The prudish cacademic authors, editors, and publishers are still among
us; see above. In 1935, brave Columbia University professor Allen
Walker Read could not get his monumental study of uncensored outhouse
graffiti published -- no American scholarly journal or university press
and their uptight editors would touch it.
Thus he had 75 copies printed privately in Paris, with the scholarly
title _Lexical Evidence from Epigraphy in Western North America: A
Glossarial Study of the Low Element in the English Vocabulary._ As we
were good friends, he let me publish his rare gem in 1977 with the new
title _Classic American Graffiti_. See review by William Bright
(_Language_, June 1979) at:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/graffiti.html
This is just one example of American scholarly prudery. Having done
much research in French, German, and English scholarly journals about
_maledicta_, I have often come across the type of the above-mentioned
prudery. The scholars write their articles in French or German or
English, but as soon as a topic appears that is somehow connected with
human body parts located between the navel and the knees, they switch to
Latin or Greek terms, instead of using their language's terms. Here's a
made-up example:
"Thereupon, Catullus ripped open his tunic, exposed his tumescent
_membrum virile_, ordered the slave to open his mouth, and tried to
shove his _virgula_ into it. However, unwilling to engage in
_fellatio_, the slave refused; whereupon the sexually aroused poet
commenced a brutal act of _irrumatio_."
Or, instead of the harmless "to copulate," those spineless weasels use
Latin: _penem in vaginam inserere_ (pardon my case endings -- it's been
IL years). Or would it kill those hypocrites to write in plain English,
"to insert the penis into the vagina"?
> The definition of fututor is not euphemized, euphemization would, if I
> right, involve defining the word as something like "sexual actor" or
> "copulator".
There are about ten degrees and types of euphemization. I use
"euphemism" as the general term for all (from Greek "good speech," as
contrasted with dysphemism).
1: fucker = honest
2: f*cker = used by gutsy publications
3: fu**er = strange, idiosyncratic; used by D.G. Kilday
4: f---er = used by bolder newspapers; dashes match the number
of suppressed letters, thus the reader can figure
out what is meant
5a: f----- = ditto; dashes match the number of suppressed letters
5b: f***** = ditto; asterisks match the number of suppressed letters
6: f_____ = TIME magazine's special idiocy: using one underscore of
approximately the length of the castrated word
7: f- = used by cowardly newspaper editors; not indicating length
of word
8: copulator = if used without indicating that it's a substitute for
the actual word, e.g. by putting it in ( ), it's a
deliberate deception of the reader
9: #@*&!% = total suppression; the reader must guess and often
substitutes worse terms
10: (expletive deleted) = of "Watergate Tapes" fame; common cowardly
newspaper weaseling
Some writers make up their own "clever" euphemisms, such as Leah Garchik
of the _San Francisco Chronicle_. In her column she wrote about someone
kicking someone else in his spaldings. My reaction was, naturally,
"What *is* that dumb cunt talking about?", because as a non-sporty guy I
was unfamiliar with the Spalding Co. (manufacturer of various kinds of
balls for sports).
> There must be some word (can we coin one, if not?) for
> substituting astricks for letters in order not to offend those who
> know what the word means with or without the astricks and confound
> only that class that knows what the word means with the actual letters
> and not with the astricks.
Back in 1979, I coined "dingbatted maledicta" for "offensive" words that
have one or more letters replaced by dingbats (typographical ornaments
or non-alphanumeric symbols such as & * % # @): see "Dingbatted
Maledicta: Symbolic Euphemisms" in _Maledicta_ III/2 (1979), 208-211,
preceded by _Verbatim_'s Laurence Urdang's "You Have Only Your Asterisk"
on the same topic; both articles show many examples.
> I don't mean this to be mean-spirited, I laughed so hard when I read
> your comments (the original ones were only slightly amusing) I can
> say it lightened my entire day.
Fear not: I didn't consider your comments in any way mean-spirited. I
also hope that Mr. Kilday does not consider my post a personal attack.
I'm just like a bull who reacts to asterisks and other forms of
*unnecessary* euphemizations as if they were red cloths waved before me.
There simply was no good reason to use _fu**er_ in his otherwise honest
and explicit information, for which I'm grateful.
—
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
P.O. Box 14123
Santa Rosa, CA 95402
USA
Peter Metcalfe
> 10: (expletive deleted) = of "Watergate Tapes" fame; common cowardly
> newspaper weaseling
This can be deceptive in another way. Nixo, for example, said "I
don't give a shit about the lira" but the usage of "expletive
deleted" made people think he used "fuck" instead.
--Peter Metcalfe
Peter T. Daniels
>
> <...> I've been fighting silly euphemisms in scholarly works
> and publications for hoi polloi ("family" newspapers in particular) for
> about 40 years.
> The prudish cacademic authors, editors, and publishers are still among
> us; see above. In 1935, brave Columbia University professor Allen
> Walker Read could not get his monumental study of uncensored outhouse
> graffiti published -- no American scholarly journal or university press
> and their uptight editors would touch it.
>
> Thus he had 75 copies printed privately in Paris, with the scholarly
> title _Lexical Evidence from Epigraphy in Western North America: A
> Glossarial Study of the Low Element in the English Vocabulary._ As we
> were good friends, he let me publish his rare gem in 1977 with the new
> title _Classic American Graffiti_. See review by William Bright
> (_Language_, June 1979) at:
Are you unaware of changes in American jurisprudence between 1935 and
1977? Or does your use of "still" merely reflect your poor command of
English vocabulary? It sure didn't take much "bravery" or "fight" to
publish that material in 1977.
> http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/graffiti.html
>
> This is just one example of American scholarly prudery. Having done
> much research in French, German, and English scholarly journals about
> _maledicta_, I have often come across the type of the above-mentioned
> prudery. The scholars write their articles in French or German or
> English, but as soon as a topic appears that is somehow connected with
> human body parts located between the navel and the knees, they switch to
> Latin or Greek terms, instead of using their language's terms. Here's a
> made-up example:
>
> "Thereupon, Catullus ripped open his tunic, exposed his tumescent
> _membrum virile_, ordered the slave to open his mouth, and tried to
> shove his _virgula_ into it. However, unwilling to engage in
> _fellatio_, the slave refused; whereupon the sexually aroused poet
> commenced a brutal act of _irrumatio_."
>
> Or, instead of the harmless "to copulate," those spineless weasels use
> Latin: _penem in vaginam inserere_ (pardon my case endings -- it's been
> IL years). Or would it kill those hypocrites to write in plain English,
> "to insert the penis into the vagina"?
That was IL years ago. Where have you seen this recently?
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> > <...> I've been fighting silly euphemisms in scholarly works and
> > publications for hoi polloi ("family" newspapers in particular)
> > for about 40 years.
>
> > The prudish cacademic authors, editors, and publishers are still
> > among us; see above. In 1935, brave Columbia University professor
> > Allen Walker Read could not get his monumental study of uncensored
> > outhouse graffiti published -- no American scholarly journal or
> > university press and their uptight editors would touch it.
> >
> > Thus he had 75 copies printed privately in Paris, with the
> > scholarly title _Lexical Evidence from Epigraphy in Western North
> > America: A Glossarial Study of the Low Element in the English
> > Vocabulary._ As we were good friends, he let me publish his rare
> > gem in 1977 with the new title _Classic American Graffiti_. See
> > review by William Bright (_Language_, June 1979) at:
> > http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/graffiti.html
> Are you unaware of changes in American jurisprudence between 1935
> and 1977?
Hi, Petey! Glad to see your lovable Snippy-Little-Bitch persona popping
up again. Yes, I'm aware of the changes and have several books on
censorship, including a fine work published by the Bowker people.
> Or does your use of "still" merely reflect your poor command of
> English vocabulary?
The problem is not my allegedly "poor command of English vocabulary" but
your lacking skills in reading comprehension. You goofed up three times
in your reply, despite your incredibly fantastic command of English
vocabulary. To wit, "still" refers to the recent post by Mr. Kilday:
"The prudish cacademic authors, editors, and publishers are still among
us; see above." Get it now, Snippy?
> It sure didn't take much "bravery" or "fight" to
> publish that material in 1977.
You're weird, reading-comprehension-wise. "Brave" clearly refers to
Prof. Read's courage to collect the outhouse graffiti and then try to
get his lexicographic research with lots of "filthy" words published in
*1935*. Nowhere did I state or imply that it took "bravery" to publish
that book in 1977.
But you know, Petey, in *1996* a well-known printing company in Michigan
refused to print my journal _Maledicta 12_ because it contained a
scholarly article, by a topnotch Dutch lexicographer and linguist, on
Burmese homosexuals. So it still takes some "fight" to get uncensored
material published and printed in the US-of-prudish-A.
> > This is just one example of American scholarly prudery. Having
> > done much research in French, German, and English scholarly
> > journals about _maledicta_, I have often come across the type of
> > the above-mentioned prudery. The scholars write their articles in
> > French or German or English, but as soon as a topic appears that is
> > somehow connected with human body parts located between the navel
> > and the knees, they switch to Latin or Greek terms, instead of
> > using their language's terms. Here's a made-up example:
> >
> > "Thereupon, Catullus ripped open his tunic, exposed his tumescent
> > _membrum virile_, ordered the slave to open his mouth, and tried to
> > shove his _virgula_ into it. However, unwilling to engage in
> > _fellatio_, the slave refused; whereupon the sexually aroused poet
> > commenced a brutal act of _irrumatio_."
> >
> > Or, instead of the harmless "to copulate," those spineless weasels
> > use Latin: _penem in vaginam inserere_ (pardon my case endings --
> > it's been IL years). Or would it kill those hypocrites to write in
> > plain English, "to insert the penis into the vagina"?
> That was IL years ago. Where have you seen this recently?
Actually, it was XL years ago (my typo; mea culpa). And again you
misread: it was 40 years ago *when I studied Latin* ("case endings"
reference), not when I saw the prudish scholars hide behind their
_virgula_ and _pudendum muliebre_ and _clitorides_.
Mosey over to Columbia University and check the books and journals
(Classics section, esp. Catullus and Martial) published within the past
three or five years. You'll find plenty of euphemized sexual and
scatological terms.
Some readers from <humanities.classics> certainly subscribe to, or at
least look through, journals in their field; the brave ones could inform
us of recent examples of euphemization.
So, Petey, let's not start a flame war; I'm not interested, and you
should remember that I can get quite nasty with annoying snippy little
bitches. I *know* what I'm talking about and I *understand* what I read
(even though English is not my mother tongue), which is not true in your
case concerning this matter.
BTW, how's your command of German and Bavarian vocabulary? As fantastic
as mine?
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Acke Ackspett
> cdstrand wrote:
>
>
>>Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
>
>
>>>Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
>
>
>>>>Sextillus, who is neither a "pedico" (pederast)
>>>>nor a "fututor" (fu**er).
>
>
>>>Thank you for your excellent information -- but why is Latin "fucker"
>>>(_fututor_) spelled out and English "fucker" (_fu**er_) euphemized?
>
>
>>>Aren't the days of super-prudish 19th-century scholars
>>>(_membrum virile_, _virgula_, etc.) finally beh*nd us?
>
>
>>Surely this isn't a serious question.
>
>
> It certainly is. I've been fighting silly euphemisms in scholarly works
> and publications for hoi polloi ("family" newspapers in particular) for
> about 40 years.
>
The term "silly euphemisms" is somewhat questionable. You and I probably
have about the same idea about what is "silly", but I'd like to stress
that the level of silliness is in the eye of the beholder. Each epoch,
each culture has its own ideas of what can be printed or uttered, and I
maintain that there is no universal ideal we are all going towards. A
hundred years ago, there was no way you could write the word "fuck" in a
family paper, but there was no problem to describe afro-americans with
the word "nigger". Today it is the other way round due to a development
I of course approve of. My great-grand-mother might not.
Personally I would prefer a hypothetical author of a report on the
relationship of different words for "excrements" in European languages
to use euphemisms at least to some degree, no matter the possible
scholarly value of the report. That way I just might be able to read it
at the same time as I was eating chocolate mousse.
No, I have nothing against seeing the word "fucker" in print, if that is
what the author wants to say.
Yes, I think we should fight for our right to print what we ourselves
consider harmless.
But no, I don't think the judgement of what is silly is much more than
the result of culturally biased subjective and fluctuating opinions.
And yes, I think editors should fight for their right to keep their
papers clean from what _they_ consider unprintable.
May the best man win!
Acke
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> > cdstrand wrote:
> >> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> >>> Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
> >>>>Sextillus, who is neither a "pedico" (pederast)
> >>>>nor a "fututor" (fu**er).
> >>>Thank you for your excellent information — but why is Latin "fucker"
> >>>(_fututor_) spelled out and English "fucker" (_fu**er_) euphemized?
> >>>Aren't the days of super-prudish 19th-century scholars
> >>>(_membrum virile_, _virgula_, etc.) finally beh*nd us?
> >>Surely this isn't a serious question.
> > It certainly is. I've been fighting silly euphemisms in scholarly
> > works and publications for hoi polloi ("family" newspapers in
> > particular) for about 40 years.
> The term "silly euphemisms" is somewhat questionable.
I agree. But note that I also wrote about "unnecessary" euphemisms,
implying that there are non-silly and necessary euphemisms.
> You and I probably have about the
> same idea about what is "silly", but I'd like to stress
> that the level of silliness is in the eye of the beholder.
Here I disagree to a point, as shown below by my examples of silly
euphemizations that any *intelligent* reader would agree are clearly silly.
> Each epoch, each culture has its own ideas of what can be
> printed or uttered, and I maintain that there is no universal
> ideal we are all going towards. A hundred years ago, there
> was no way you could write the word "fuck" in a family paper,
In the USA, you still can't. That's why they call themselves "family
newspapers" and euphemize "fuck" even if uttered by the President.
> but there was no problem to describe afro-americans with the
> word "nigger". Today it is the other way round due to a development
> I of course approve of. My great-grand-mother might not.
The then-editor of _Webster's New World Dictionary_, David Guralnik,
wrote a piece about this development for _Maledicta_, in which he called
racial, religious and ethnic slurs "the new obscenities."
A similar 180-degree-turn happened with the words "cigarette" and
"condom." About 10-15 years ago, one could ask unabashedly for a pack
of cigarettes but had to whisper when asking where the condoms are;
today it's the other way around.
> Personally I would prefer a hypothetical author of a report on the
> relationship of different words for "excrements" in European languages
> to use euphemisms at least to some degree, no matter the possible
> scholarly value of the report.
Bold, real scholars report the *actual* words, as "disgusting" as they
may be. Using euphemisms and paraphrases is deceptive and falsifies
reality, making such philological and etymological "research" worthless.
> That way I just might be able to read it
> at the same time as I was eating chocolate mousse.
Bad choice. In such cases, I recommend eating phallic carrots instead
of something that looks like soft feces.
> No, I have nothing against seeing the word "fucker" in print, if that
> is what the author wants to say.
>
> Yes, I think we should fight for our right to print what we ourselves
> consider harmless.
>
> But no, I don't think the judgement of what is silly is much more than
> the result of culturally biased subjective and fluctuating opinions.
Disagree. See below.
> And yes, I think editors should fight for their right to keep their
> papers clean from what _they_ consider unprintable.
Agree, (1) as long as they do not intentionally deceive their readership
and (2) if they euphemize intelligently, so that the reader can figure
out what is being suppressed.
As another reader commented, the phrase "(expletive deleted") in the
"Watergate Tapes" caused many to fill in terms that were worse than the
actual ones; e.g., "fuck" for the actual "shit." I happened to analyze
those tape transcripts and was able to reconstruct many of the actual
terms, which in fact were merely mild blasphemies deleted by the
religious Charles Colson.
One non-religious example: "Bobby Kennedy is a (expletive deleted)."
What did Nixon really call him? It can't be "asshole" because of the
"a." Was it "cocksucker," a term Mr. Nixon did use elsewhere and some
readers must have assumed? It turned out that the actual term of abuse
was the relatively harmless "bastard."
Examples of newspaper censorship, some silly, some not, and honest reporting:
On April 10, 1997, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Rep.
David Obey (D-Wisconsin) had an exchange of words on the House floor.
This is how major U.S. newspapers reported it:
_Boston Globe_: During a debate on campaign finance, DeLay "erupted" as
Obey displayed "an article from two years ago alleging that lobbyists
had written legislation in DeLay's office." DeLay: "That's chicken shit."
_Washington Times_: Obey raced over to DeLay and "poked a finger at
him." DeLay then "shoved him back with both hands and could be heard in
the gallery saying 'gutless chickenshit'."
_Roll Call_: Quotes Obey, who says DeLay "poked me in the chest and
called me a lying chicken-shit."
_New York Times_: *Falsified* the actual words to "chicken droppings."
-- Which is to be expected from the _NYT_.
_Philadelphia Inquirer_: Acceptably euphemized to "chicken s-t."
_Wall Street Journal_: Chickened out with "chicken (expletive)!"
_USA Today_: Even worse: "chicken-." -- Chicken- what? Chickenfucker?
_Los Angeles Times_: DeLay "directed a profanity." -- That, to me, is a
silly, gutless, disgusting euphemization which leaves the reader in the
dark about what was said.
_Washington Post_: The two "engaged in animated discussion." -- That's
totally uninformative and gutless and even worse than the _L.A. Times_.
_Milwaukee Journal Sentinel_: Quoted Obey: "He put his finger firmly in
my chest -- twice -- and said, 'You're a gutless chicken (expletive).'"
-- That rag, formerly _Milwaukee Journal_ (or as I called it for 30
years when I lived in that Gestapo state, _Milwaukee Urinal_) is one of
the worst offenders.
—
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
M A L E D I C T A
P.O. Box 14123
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
Acke Ackspett
<everything deleted>
I read your posting three times, and cannot find anything to disagree
on. Most of it is not disagreements to my posting, but clarifications
and added detail. Thanks.
Acke
Peter T. Daniels
> As another reader commented, the phrase "(expletive deleted") in the
> "Watergate Tapes" caused many to fill in terms that were worse than the
> actual ones; e.g., "fuck" for the actual "shit." I happened to analyze
> those tape transcripts and was able to reconstruct many of the actual
> terms, which in fact were merely mild blasphemies deleted by the
> religious Charles Colson.
Colson's turn to religion came _during_ his Watergate-related
imprisonment, so it was not a factor in the redacting of the transcripts
(even if he was the person who actually did the job).
Nick Swetenham
> in use today. What I would like to know is whether this is the earliest
> attested use of this particular kineme of body language.
After the Cancún trade talks, the Economist had a cover with the title
"The charming outcome of the cancún trade talks" and a cactus in the
shape of a hand displaying the aforementioned impudent finger.
The following week, one of the responses asked why they had not
instead used the British V-sign, rather than the "American" gesture.
The week after that someone replied with words to this effect:
"In response to Mr. X's comment in the (date) edition, the gesture is
perhaps not British, but neither is it American. The Romans called it
<I>digitus impudens</I>."
That's unfortunately all I can tell you.
Nick Swetenham
Allan Adler
Reinhold (Ray) Aman wrote:
>> was no way you could write the word "fuck" in a family paper,
>
>In the USA, you still can't. That's why they call themselves "family
>newspapers" and euphemize "fuck" even if uttered by the President.
I don't believe there was any censorship of expletives in the NY Times'
publication of transcripts of the Nixon tapes.
Also, I recall that while Nelson D. Rockefeller was vice president, the
NY Times had a front page photo of him giving the finger to a heckler
at one of his public speeches.
cdstrand
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > Why not? 'Euphemized' isn't precisely correct, but the
> > insertion of the asterisks is silly.
> The point of the asterisks is to acknowledge the rule that the
> plain word is meant to violate, namely that there must be a relationship
> that the hearer has granted to the speaker; and the asterisks avoid
> claiming that, while still allowing the word. So it is no longer rude.
I would like to point out that this has nothing whatever to do with
either "speakers" or "hearers". In speech this would have been done
an entirely different way, or not at all. This convention is an
artifact of written language.
> The referent is not part of the game at all, so it does not need to
> be concealed, and the asterisks do not conceal it.
If concealment were the point, surely the method fails miserably.
Without rancor, by using this method, it seems to me this author
wishes to say something about himself, and, if I might, to me
certainly, what the author said about himself is quite clear.
John W. Kennedy
> Colson's turn to religion came _during_ his Watergate-related
> imprisonment, so it was not a factor in the redacting of the transcripts
> (even if he was the person who actually did the job).
Sure, but Republicans are contractually obligated to _fake_ being
Christians (unless they're Jewish, I guess....)
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Colson's turn to religion came _during_ his Watergate-related
> > imprisonment, so it was not a factor in the redacting of the transcripts
> > (even if he was the person who actually did the job).
>
> Sure, but Republicans are contractually obligated to _fake_ being
> Christians (unless they're Jewish, I guess....)
Jewish Republicans?? You mean, Joe Lieberman?
cdstrand
> cdstrand wrote:
> > Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> > > Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
> > > > Sextillus, who is neither a "pedico" (pederast)
> > > > nor a "fututor" (fu**er).
> > > Thank you for your excellent information -- but why is Latin "fucker"
> > > (_fututor_) spelled out and English "fucker" (_fu**er_) euphemized?
> > > Aren't the days of super-prudish 19th-century scholars
> > > (_membrum virile_, _virgula_, etc.) finally beh*nd us?
>
> > Surely this isn't a serious question.
>
> It certainly is. I've been fighting silly euphemisms in scholarly works
> and publications for hoi polloi ("family" newspapers in particular) for
> about 40 years.
I read your excellent article and began laughing all over again. I
should have been clearer, my comment about "serious question" referred
to the fact that, of course the days of silly, super-prudish scholars,
politicians, newspapers, teachers, librarians, etc. etc. etc. are
*not* behind us as any cursory observer of our "modern" culture can
surely see.
(( cuts ))
> "Thereupon, Catullus ripped open his tunic, exposed his tumescent
> _membrum virile_, ordered the slave to open his mouth, and tried to
> shove his _virgula_ into it. However, unwilling to engage in
> _fellatio_, the slave refused; whereupon the sexually aroused poet
> commenced a brutal act of _irrumatio_."
Strangely enough, though none of this vocabulary was covered in my
last high school latin class, in 1960, I know exactly what they all
mean. The opportunity for an education in America never ends.
> Or, instead of the harmless "to copulate," those spineless weasels use
> Latin: _penem in vaginam inserere_ (pardon my case endings -- it's been
> IL years). Or would it kill those hypocrites to write in plain English,
> "to insert the penis into the vagina"?
The irony of all this, I think, is that *penis* was the vulgar term in
Rome, was it not? I looked this up when I saw your article and
Anthony Blond's fun "A Scandalous History of the Roman Emperors" has
quite a discussion of it that I recalled...mentula was the polite
term, according to Blond.
(( cuts ))
> There are about ten degrees and types of euphemization. I use
> "euphemism" as the general term for all (from Greek "good speech," as
> contrasted with dysphemism).
Sadly, my Greek is worse than my Latin. I would never have used
"euphemism" in that way, which is why I asked the question.
> Some writers make up their own "clever" euphemisms, such as Leah Garchik
> of the _San Francisco Chronicle_. In her column she wrote about someone
> kicking someone else in his spaldings. My reaction was, naturally,
> "What *is* that dumb cunt talking about?", because as a non-sporty guy I
> was unfamiliar with the Spalding Co. (manufacturer of various kinds of
> balls for sports).
A good story. Interestingly, I got her reference immediately, and
that made her comment funnier to me.
(( cuts ))
> Back in 1979, I coined "dingbatted maledicta" for "offensive" words that
> have one or more letters replaced by dingbats (typographical ornaments
> or non-alphanumeric symbols such as & * % # @): see "Dingbatted
> Maledicta: Symbolic Euphemisms" in _Maledicta_ III/2 (1979), 208-211,
> preceded by _Verbatim_'s Laurence Urdang's "You Have Only Your Asterisk"
> on the same topic; both articles show many examples.
I knew it. This is the sort of issue that has certainly been
addressed before by an inquiring mind. I like this much better than
"euphemism". I look forward to using it in the future, if my poor
memory can succeed one more time.
(( cuts ))
Regards,
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<3FCC6C87...@sonic.net>...
> > There are about ten degrees and types of euphemization. I use
> > "euphemism" as the general term for all (from Greek "good speech," as
> > contrasted with dysphemism).
>
> Sadly, my Greek is worse than my Latin. I would never have used
> "euphemism" in that way, which is why I asked the question.
You are a speaker of English; you use the word as the English-speaking
speech community uses it. Rindhole apparently feels that etymology is a
guide to meaning.
> > Some writers make up their own "clever" euphemisms, such as Leah Garchik
> > of the _San Francisco Chronicle_. In her column she wrote about someone
> > kicking someone else in his spaldings. My reaction was, naturally,
> > "What *is* that dumb cunt talking about?", because as a non-sporty guy I
> > was unfamiliar with the Spalding Co. (manufacturer of various kinds of
> > balls for sports).
>
> A good story. Interestingly, I got her reference immediately, and
> that made her comment funnier to me.
Rindhole is seriously out of touch with American culture. If you read
more than a handful of his disgusting postings, you will see that he
routinely refers to women as "cunts." Which, I suppose, merely
demonstrates what a prick he is.
> (( cuts ))
>
> > Back in 1979, I coined "dingbatted maledicta" for "offensive" words that
> > have one or more letters replaced by dingbats (typographical ornaments
> > or non-alphanumeric symbols such as & * % # @): see "Dingbatted
> > Maledicta: Symbolic Euphemisms" in _Maledicta_ III/2 (1979), 208-211,
> > preceded by _Verbatim_'s Laurence Urdang's "You Have Only Your Asterisk"
> > on the same topic; both articles show many examples.
>
> I knew it. This is the sort of issue that has certainly been
> addressed before by an inquiring mind. I like this much better than
> "euphemism". I look forward to using it in the future, if my poor
> memory can succeed one more time.
Like David Brooks, Rindhole desperately tries to invent coinages that
will catch on in the English-speaking community. Not even "maledicta,"
which is now nearly thirty years old, has caught on.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> cdstrand wrote:
> > > There are about ten degrees and types of euphemization. I use
> > > "euphemism" as the general term for all (from Greek "good speech,"
> > > as contrasted with dysphemism).
> > Sadly, my Greek is worse than my Latin. I would never have used
> > "euphemism" in that way, which is why I asked the question.
> You are a speaker of English; you use the word as the English-speaking
> speech community uses it. Rindhole apparently feels that etymology is
> a guide to meaning.
Ah, mon vieux pédé enculé, you're sinking lower and lower. Back to the
infantile "Rindhole," are we? I can understand that you -- a flaming
homo -- try to find holes wherever you can, but if you'd have checked
the etymology of my first name, you'd have found that it's from Germanic
_hvaltan_, "to rule," etc., with no hole in sight.
And as an ASSyrian etymologist & lexicographer, you ought to know that
etymology often is a guide to a word's meaning. Just look at your own
name, Petra, you snippy little bitch.
> > > Some writers make up their own "clever" euphemisms, such as Leah
> > > Garchik of the _San Francisco Chronicle_. In her column she wrote
> > > about someone kicking someone else in his spaldings. My reaction
> > > was, naturally, "What *is* that dumb cunt talking about?", because
> > > as a non-sporty guy I was unfamiliar with the Spalding Co.
> > > (manufacturer of various kinds of balls for sports).
> > A good story. Interestingly, I got her reference immediately,
> > and that made her comment funnier to me.
> Rindhole is seriously out of touch with American culture.
Petey, you're a genuine asshole, literally and figuratively. I've been
living in the USA for the past 44 years and am exposed daily to American
"culture." If it were not for your abominable lack of reading
comprehension (see your previous snippy-bitch post where you fucked up
thrice), you would have understood why "spaldings" meant nothing to me.
From the context I knew of course that Leah meant "balls" -- I'm pretty
hip in matters concerning collocations and idioms -- but I'm not into
sports and had never heard of that company. That makes me culturally
illiterate? As a homo, *you* are of course into balls, hoops, baskets,
holes, and phallic baseball bats, if you get my drift. (Now don't get
all excited fantasizing about a Louisville Slugger.)
> If you read more than a handful of his disgusting postings,
Why do you and other mouth-frothing Aman-haters read only my
"disgusting" posts? I post to amuse, to instruct, or to annoy.
Besides, what a prissy little prick like you finds "disgusting," others
consider highly amusing. Chacun à son ragoût, mon p'tit chouchou.
> you will see that he routinely refers to women as "cunts."
Routinely, my ass. That's one more of your sweeping and totally wrong
claims that put you firmly into my "Genuine Asshole" category. To wit,
I also call certain dislikable females "chick," "broad," "bitch,"
"twat," "slut," "sow," or "bulldyke," all depending on the target.
I've never quite understood why so many busybodying faggots like you
feel the need to act as spokespersons [sic] for women in general and for
man-hating, castrating lesbian bitches in particular. My guess is that
they either commiserate with their fellow subhumans "oppressed" and
"victimized" by us males or that the female part of their brain kicks in
and makes them shriek. At any rate, Petey, women don't need *you* to
speak for them.
And speaking of helping wimmen: It's snowing like hell in New York now.
Shouldn't you be outside, helping your hairy-legged butchy lesbian
neighbor shovel snow? Deeds, not words, Petey. Shovel snow instead of shit.
> Which, I suppose, merely demonstrates what a prick he is.
That's just disgusting! Such a low blow (job).
> > (( cuts ))
> > > Back in 1979, I coined "dingbatted maledicta" for "offensive"
> > > words that have one or more letters replaced by dingbats
> > > (typographical ornaments or non-alphanumeric symbols such as
> > > & * % # @): see "Dingbatted Maledicta: Symbolic Euphemisms"
> > > in _Maledicta_ III/2 (1979), 208-211, preceded by _Verbatim_'s
> > > Laurence Urdang's "You Have Only Your Asterisk" on the same
> > > topic; both articles show many examples.
> > I knew it. This is the sort of issue that has certainly been
> > addressed before by an inquiring mind. I like this much better
> > than "euphemism". I look forward to using it in the future, if
> > my poor memory can succeed one more time.
> Like David Brooks, Rindhole desperately tries to invent coinages that
> will catch on in the English-speaking community. Not even "maledicta,"
> which is now nearly thirty years old, has caught on.
Petey, Petey, your consuming envy and jealousy of my achievements are
not pleasant traits (but still much better than some of your other
ones). Where do you bleeding arsehole (oops!) get the idea that I
"desperately" try to coin words? I've coined a few useful ones that
have made it into print (and the WWW), such as "cacademia," "cacademic,"
"cacademoid," "maledicta" (yes, I know), "Cassidyze" (to bowdlerize),
"kakologia," and a few others. Google shows 6,340 hits for "maledicta."
"Maledicta" and "maledictology" (German: "Malediktologie," about which
seminars are/were offered by "Malediktologen" at the universities in
Tübingen and Heidelberg) are standard terms used by us international
maledictologists. I should give a rat's ass that the envious American
mousebrain "scholars" of cacademia won't employ those useful terms?
Fuck 'em.
And fuck *you*, Petey-Bitch. I realize that nobody loves you when
you're old and gay, but I can't go on feeding your neuroses. Now go
shovel some snow, you silly cunt.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
M A L E D I C T A
P.O. Box 14123
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/biblio-13.html
Douglas G. Kilday
"Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message ...
> Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Sextillus, who is neither a "pedico" (pederast)
> > nor a "fututor" (fu**er).
>
> Thank you for your excellent information -- but why is Latin "fucker"
> (_fututor_) spelled out and English "fucker" (_fu**er_) euphemized?
It is a precaution against indirect blacklisting. About a year ago I tried
to enter a discussion on AUE concerning "diddly squat", in which I presented
the hypothesis of euphemistic substitution for "fu**ing sh*t" which I had
once heard from a Christian fundamentalist (no sh*t). That posting, which
did not contain asterisks, never appeared on AUE, nor did any subsequent
material I posted there dealing with other topics. Now, I do not know
whether my uncensored "diddly squat" posting actually triggered a black flag
in an intermediate news-sending program. Others are able to post profanity
with impunity. I am fully aware of the dangers of reasoning _post hoc ergo
propter hoc_, and there is a great deal about Usenet of which I am ignorant.
Under the circumstances, however, it seems prudent, not prudish, to avoid
the four-letter sequences frowned upon by the FCC.
It is quite remarkable that a pair of asterisks has generated so much
traffic, even the claim by one poster (a devout Freudian?) that it clearly
says something about me. What it says is that I do not wish to be
blacklisted from these newsgroups, since they constitute a significant part
of my social life, which indeed makes me one sorry mother-fu**er.
> Aren't the days of super-prudish 19th-century scholars (_membrum
> virile_, _virgula_, etc.) finally beh*nd us?
I think _membrum virile_ is still useful, since these newsgroups have
international readership and the term has no ambiguity. If a word like
<muto> or <pipinna> were glossed as 'penis' in a discussion of Latin
etymology, the latter term might be taken in the _Latin_ sense of 'anything
hanging down', including a tail as well as a _membrum virile_. As for my
favorite, _pudendum muliebre_, it somehow seems more salacious than any
common term (implying that a woman _should_ feel modesty about her thing,
but in reality ... heh-heh ... she _doesn't_, otherwise *_pudorosum
muliebre_).
Ultra-Victorians, by the way, censored Latin as well as English. I have a
copy of George Stuart's edition of Sallust (Philadelphia 1879). Chapters 13
and 14 of the text of "De conjuratione Catilinae" contain lacunae filled
with asterisks. In the notes to Chapter 13 one reads "the **** indicate the
omission of eight words, whose suppression the purer propriety of our age
demands".
DGK
Jacques Guy
> It is quite remarkable that a pair of asterisks has generated so much
> traffic, even the claim by one poster (a devout Freudian?) that it clearly
> says something about me.
Oh dear, do I read between the lines that the use of * marks whatever as
anal? Because, let's face it, an asterisk looks awfully like an
ass.... : (*)
> As for my
> favorite, _pudendum muliebre_, it somehow seems more salacious than any
> common term (implying that a woman _should_ feel modesty about her thing,
> but in reality ... heh-heh ... she _doesn't_, otherwise *_pudorosum
> muliebre_).
You made my day!
> Ultra-Victorians, by the way, censored Latin as well as English. I have a
> copy of George Stuart's edition of Sallust (Philadelphia 1879). Chapters 13
> and 14 of the text of "De conjuratione Catilinae" contain lacunae filled
> with asterisks. In the notes to Chapter 13 one reads "the **** indicate the
> omission of eight words, whose suppression the purer propriety of our age
> demands".
Four asterisks for eight words. That really relegates it to the
scrap heap of undeciphered languagea.
Jacques Guy
> To wit,
> I also call certain dislikable females "chick," "broad," "bitch,"
> "twat," "slut," "sow," or "bulldyke," all depending on the target.
In Australia we also call them "tears", which, according to an
ex (of course) girlfriend of mine, is far far worse than
than all the above together.