What is distinction between "duh" and "doh"?

361 views
Skip to first unread message

Nrdo Hesson

unread,
Apr 27, 2002, 11:03:15 PM4/27/02
to
Nrdo

--
If you know who you are, Nrdo Hesson
you know who I am. pope...@yahoo.com

Rushtown

unread,
Apr 27, 2002, 11:45:43 PM4/27/02
to
duh = you're stupid
doh = I'm stupid

piddie

unread,
Apr 27, 2002, 11:51:29 PM4/27/02
to

Rushtown wrote:
>
> duh = you're stupid
> doh = I'm stupid

dah?

dih?

dee?

Comments?

Richard Fontana

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 12:04:08 AM4/28/02
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:03:15 GMT Nrdo Hesson wrote:

[nothing]

Well, Nrdo, this is pretty easy to answer.

"Duh" means:
(1) Sound suggesting stupidity or slow-wittedness;
(2) Sarcastic expression meaning "that's extremely obvious; no kidding".
This meaning resulted from (1); the original idea was "that's so
obvious that even a slow-witted person could figure it out".

"Doh" or, arguably more properly, "d'oh!", is the interjection popularized
by Homer Simpson wich, always used jocularly, suggests something like
"sudden, surprised disappointment or chagrin". I believe that
"d'oh!" owes something to "duh!", but, while _The Simpsons_ is responsible
for the modern currency of "doh", there are some examples of earlier
usages (IIRC Dan Castellaneta said he got the idea for it from Laurel
and Hardy; I've heard it used by Fred Flintstone too).

So, as you can see, the meanings of "duh" and "doh" are entirely
different. Of course the pronunciations are entirely different too; let
me know if you need an explanation of this.

R H Draney

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 2:44:55 AM4/28/02
to
rfon...@wesleyan.edu (Richard Fontana) wrote in
news:slrnacmt81....@localhost.localdomain:

> "Doh" or, arguably more properly, "d'oh!", is the interjection
> popularized by Homer Simpson

...


> (IIRC Dan Castellaneta said he
> got the idea for it from Laurel and Hardy; I've heard it used by
> Fred Flintstone too).

The time-frame is about right, but it came from Edgar Kennedy, not
Laurel and Hardy...originally it was a long, drawn-out "do-o-o-o-oh!"
rising in pitch as it went, as befit Kennedy's "slow burn"
trademark...since Groening was writing for television (presumably a
medium with a faster pace), he asked Castellaneta to shorten it....r

psi

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 3:04:19 AM4/28/02
to
"Richard Fontana" <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnacmt81....@localhost.localdomain...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:03:15 GMT Nrdo Hesson wrote:
>
<snip>

> "Doh" or, arguably more properly, "d'oh!", is the interjection popularized
<etc>

Why "more properly"? If it's Dan Castellaneta's creation, that would suggest
it's not in the script, and therefore not definitively spelt out, wouldn't
it?

psi

Richard Fontana

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 3:46:49 AM4/28/02
to

Well, in the Simpsons comic books that I've seen, it's always written as
"D'OH!", and that's about as official as you can get. Also, I can think
of at least one episode of _The Simpsons_ on which the word appeared in
print, and as "D'OH!". I'm thinking of the one involving the flashback
explaining how Lisa got her saxophone. Homer is asking the music store
guy to inscribe a message to Lisa on the saxophone, but he drops the
saxophone on his foot, so the inscription reads:

Dear Lisa: May your new saxophone bring you years of D'OH!

My guess is that at some point in
the television history of _The Simpsons_ the interjection got standardized
in their official, presumably private scripts as "D'oh!".

As I indicated in my previous posting, I think this spelling suggests some
sort of connection with "duh". Like Homer is starting to say
"duh" (appropriate, since he's a sort of slow-witted, if loveable,
guy) but then, realizing the chagrin, turns it into "d'oh!". It's like a
contraction of "duh!" and "oh!". I can't see how else to explain why they
spell it with the apostrophe.

Mark Wallace

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 5:59:59 AM4/28/02
to

"psi" <p...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:o7Ny8.14042$oK4.51909@NewsReader...

Because it's French, maybe?
"D'eau!" = "I'm pissed!"

--

Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------

Emery

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 6:27:30 AM4/28/02
to
in article popenrdo-D3F0AD...@lsnewsr3.we.ipsvc.net, Nrdo Hesson
at pope...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/27/02 8:03 PM:

>What is distinction between "duh" and "doh"?
[in the subject line, I've copied it here in the body.]

As exclamations, "duh" is used in response to a statement that is so
self-evident or simplistic that stating it explicitly implies that one
doesn't understand that it is self-evident or simplistic. It implies that
the one who made that statement is rather slow of mind. It means something
like "everyone understands that, you idiot".

"Doh" (more usually written "d'oh") on the other hand, is a self-depricatory
exclamation, used when one has failed to anticipate a development
detrimental to oneself, especially when, in hindsight, the development
should have been easily anticipated. It is often somewhat apologetic,
meaning "I feel stupid that I didn't see that coming".

It originated, as far as I know, with the cartoon character Homer Simpson,
who uses the exclamation regularly. Homer uses it as an expression of
frustration, but his frustration in such matters stems from his being an
idiot. While Homer doesn't necessarily intend to call attetion to his
stupidity when using it, one who deliberately copies his use is saying, in
effect, "OK, I admit I was an idiot just then, at least give me credit for
understanding it in hindsight."

> Nrdo

Wanna buy a vowel?

John Flynn

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 6:44:19 AM4/28/02
to
psi wrote (about Homer Simpson's "d'oh"):

> Why "more properly"? If it's Dan Castellaneta's creation, that would
> suggest it's not in the script, and therefore not definitively spelt
> out, wouldn't it?

It's spelled out (as "d'oh") in several of the episodes' official
titles.

--
johnF

Dr Robin Bignall

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 6:57:33 AM4/28/02
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:59:59 +0200, "Mark Wallace"
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:

>
>"psi" <p...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
>news:o7Ny8.14042$oK4.51909@NewsReader...
>> "Richard Fontana" <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> wrote in message
>> news:slrnacmt81....@localhost.localdomain...
>> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:03:15 GMT Nrdo Hesson wrote:
>> >
>> <snip>
>> > "Doh" or, arguably more properly, "d'oh!", is the interjection
>popularized
>> <etc>
>>
>> Why "more properly"? If it's Dan Castellaneta's creation, that
>would suggest
>> it's not in the script, and therefore not definitively spelt out,
>wouldn't
>> it?
>
>Because it's French, maybe?
>"D'eau!" = "I'm pissed!"

Dough. If you take the view that Homer Simpson is the best thing since
sliced bread.

--

wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)

Tom Tobin

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 7:30:28 AM4/28/02
to
"piddie" <Ecl...@moon.net.com> wrote...
No! No!
do dadidit dadadah?
re diddadit dit?
mi dadah didit?
Shurely?

Tom.

Donna Richoux

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 7:43:13 AM4/28/02
to
Richard Fontana <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> wrote:

>
> As I indicated in my previous posting, I think this spelling suggests some
> sort of connection with "duh". Like Homer is starting to say
> "duh" (appropriate, since he's a sort of slow-witted, if loveable,
> guy) but then, realizing the chagrin, turns it into "d'oh!". It's like a
> contraction of "duh!" and "oh!". I can't see how else to explain why they
> spell it with the apostrophe.

Really? I think he's starting to say "Damn!" There's that element of
frustration.

Compare darn, dadblast it, etc.

--
Best -- Donna Richoux

John Flynn

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 7:52:48 AM4/28/02
to
John Flynn wrote:

Oops. I missed off "semi-" from "official".

The actual official spelling, by the way, is "<annoyed grunt>".

--
johnF

Pat Durkin

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 7:54:36 AM4/28/02
to

"Emery" <n...@this.org> wrote in message news:B8F11CA2.115D2%n...@this.org...


I agree with your definitions.
I don't know how old Homer and the Simpsons are, but I distinctly recall
hearing teenaged girls use "duh" back in the 70's.


John Dean

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 8:19:32 AM4/28/02
to

"Dr Robin Bignall" <docr...@red.sylvania> wrote in message
news:cqjncu4brbe5oed71...@4ax.com...

D'oh, a deer, a female deer
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply


Brian Wickham

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 10:07:44 AM4/28/02
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:19:32 +0100, "John Dean"
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:


>
>D'oh, a deer, a female deer
>--
>John Dean
>Oxford
>De-frag to reply
>
>

And a very funny episode that was where Homer ran the car into a
statue of a deer and exclaimed, "D'oh!"

Marge added, "A deer!" And Lisa explained, "A female deer!"

If I'm not mistaken that was the episode about Marge's "road rage"
when she got the new SUV.

Brian Wickham

John Flynn

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 10:24:23 AM4/28/02
to
Brian Wickham wrote:

> And a very funny episode that was where Homer ran the car into a
> statue of a deer and exclaimed, "D'oh!"
>
> Marge added, "A deer!" And Lisa explained, "A female deer!"
>
> If I'm not mistaken that was the episode about Marge's "road rage"
> when she got the new SUV.

That bit is actually from "Bart Gets An Elephant", towards the end
with the tar-pits scene.

--
johnF

Mark Wallace

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 11:15:00 AM4/28/02
to

"John Flynn" <joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns91FE8379...@130.133.1.4...

What have angry GIs got to do with it?

Mark Wallace

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 11:16:30 AM4/28/02
to

"Pat Durkin" <p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ucnompe...@corp.supernews.com...

Not to me, they didn't. You should have found yourself some better
pick-up lines.

Richard Fontana

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 1:37:57 PM4/28/02
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:27:30 -0700 Emery wrote:
>in article popenrdo-D3F0AD...@lsnewsr3.we.ipsvc.net, Nrdo Hesson
>at pope...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/27/02 8:03 PM:
>
>>What is distinction between "duh" and "doh"?
>[in the subject line, I've copied it here in the body.]
>
>As exclamations, "duh" is used in response to a statement that is so
>self-evident or simplistic that stating it explicitly implies that one
>doesn't understand that it is self-evident or simplistic. It implies that
>the one who made that statement is rather slow of mind. It means something
>like "everyone understands that, you idiot".

This isn't my intuition, as my previous posting indicates, but now I'm not
sure; maybe you're right.

Let's be clear about what the issue is. It's the origin of sarcastic
"duh!" = "that's so obvious!". Does it derive from:

(a) Even a duh-saying slow-witted person could figure that out!
or
(b) Of course, you duh-saying slow-witted person!

On balance, I still feel that (a) is correct, but I'm not going to claim
that I invented sarcastic "duh!" (well, as far as I know I didn't).

Baba Yaga

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 2:12:37 PM4/28/02
to
Emery <n...@this.org> wrote, in alt.english.usage:
[doh! or d'oh!]

>It originated, as far as I know, with the cartoon character Homer Simpson,
>who uses the exclamation regularly.

British reference: Walter Gabriel used it, a long time ago.

Baba Yaga
--
It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so
long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your
money, so long as you have got it.

Mark Brader

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 2:48:24 PM4/28/02
to
John Flynn:

> > The actual official spelling, by the way, is "<annoyed grunt>".

Mark Wallace:

> What have angry GIs got to do with it?

For a moment, there, I thought Mark was taking "annoyed grunt" to be
an SGML/XML generic identifier, because it was inside angle brackets.
His parsing seemed wrong, though, because "annoyed" was inside as well.
--
Mark Brader | scanf() is even more complicated and usually does
Toronto | something almost but not completely unlike what
m...@vex.net | you want. -- Chris Torek (after Douglas Adams)

R H Draney

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 2:57:34 PM4/28/02
to
"Tom Tobin" <t...@acara.co.uk> wrote in news:1019993433.304.0.nnrp-
10.9e...@news.demon.co.uk:

"Tennessee", in Morse code:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dadoctah/tennessee.mid

Tickled me half to death the first time someone pointed it out to
me....r

uncle monty

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 3:31:00 PM4/28/02
to

A new variant of "duh" I particularly like is "No duh", said with the
same sarcastic inflection as "no kidding". Has there been a pop culture
claimant to this phrase, or is it a grass-roots thing?

Don Aitken

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 4:44:37 PM4/28/02
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 19:12:37 +0100, Baba Yaga
<ba...@elephantschild.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Emery <n...@this.org> wrote, in alt.english.usage:
>[doh! or d'oh!]
>>It originated, as far as I know, with the cartoon character Homer Simpson,
>>who uses the exclamation regularly.
>
>British reference: Walter Gabriel used it, a long time ago.
>

And even longer ago it was the regular exclamation of the
short-tempered Mr Wilkins, in Anthony Buckeridge's "Jennings" books.

--
Don Aitken

Dr Robin Bignall

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 7:02:34 PM4/28/02
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 19:12:37 +0100, Baba Yaga
<ba...@elephantschild.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Emery <n...@this.org> wrote, in alt.english.usage:
>[doh! or d'oh!]
>>It originated, as far as I know, with the cartoon character Homer Simpson,
>>who uses the exclamation regularly.
>
>British reference: Walter Gabriel used it, a long time ago.
>

It's true, me old pal, me old beauty[1], but he made it a long daaugh
rather than a short one.

[1] One of Walter's favourite expressions from 'The Archers'.

--

wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)

Richard Fontana

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 7:33:28 PM4/28/02
to

Grass roots, I'm sure. It's not particularly new; I think it's about as
old as sarcastic "duh" itself.

Robert Bannister

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 8:00:45 PM4/28/02
to
Dr Robin Bignall wrote:

Doe, a female Julie Andrews.

--
Rob Bannister

Brian Wickham

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 10:46:36 PM4/28/02
to
On 28 Apr 2002 14:24:23 GMT, John Flynn
<joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

Right! I confused it with the charging rhino in the episode I
mentioned.

Mark Wallace

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 7:02:21 AM4/29/02
to

"Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
news:3CCC8D2D...@it.net.au...

Forgive any dim-wittedness, on my part, but is there any other kind
of Julie Andrews?

--

Begin PCP Signature...

ecallaW kraM

...End PCP Signature
_____________________________________________

What does a slightly insane Englishman think of the Dutch?
To find out, visit the Dutch & Such website:
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/dutch/dutch-index.htm
_____________________________________________

John Dean

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 9:53:41 AM4/29/02
to

"Dr Robin Bignall" <docr...@red.sylvania> wrote in message
news:38tocus0ntv1aee8v...@4ax.com...
Not forgetting Peter Glaze from 'Crackerjack!' <crackerjack>

D'oh is best pronounced as if you were going to say 'Damn', stopped yourself
barely in time and substituted 'Oh!'
I believe it is related to 'Pshaw!' and 'Tcha!'

Joe Manfre

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 10:38:05 AM4/29/02
to

"No duh" has been around at least since I was in elementary school in
the early 1980s. I don't know if it's much older than that or if
perhaps there was some IHC-era influence, though; Capt. Fontana might
know more.


JM

Gail Gurman

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 1:25:06 PM4/29/02
to
"Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote in
news:aaj96i$b875s$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de:

> "Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3CCC8D2D...@it.net.au...
>> Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>>
>> Doe, a female Julie Andrews.
>
> Forgive any dim-wittedness, on my part, but is there any other kind
> of Julie Andrews?

Have you seen Victor/Victoria?

Gail


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JOB FISHING: Looking for a Senior Technical Writer position in the Bay
Area. See www.gurman.org/resume for cover letter, resume, and samples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Fontana

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 2:18:56 PM4/29/02
to

"No duh" is definitely not recent (if we go by the Young Joey Criterion
and concede that the '80s was a Long Time Ago).

I can't see it being much more recent than sarcastic "Duh!" itself --
who knows, maybe it's older. I've noted before that kids in Pre-IHC
days, to the best of my faulty recollection, were naturally using the
Warner Bros. cartoon derived "duh" to convey "sound of stupidity".
I don't know when the sarcastic usage got invented or popularized, but
my guess is that it was way back in the mists of time, and thus
Pre-IHC. I thought someone once gave an early '70s cite here for
"duh", but I don't know if it was "sarcastic duh".


Raymond S. Wise

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 6:07:15 PM4/29/02
to
John Flynn <joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Xns91FE8379...@130.133.1.4>...


Official usage by the writers of the television program, perhaps, but
the OED has it in the online edition--or so I have read--as either
"d'oh" or "doh." I prefer "d'oh"--the word is *not* pronounced exactly
the same as "dough," the "d" has a very strong pronunciation,
difficult to describe.


--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Donna Richoux

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 6:43:01 PM4/29/02
to
R H Draney <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Tennessee", in Morse code:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~dadoctah/tennessee.mid
>
> Tickled me half to death the first time someone pointed it out to
> me....r

I really hate to spoil your fun, but I think I should tell you that that
sound file can't be the Morse for Tennessee. The last part, e-s-s-e-e,
is right, but not the T-e-n-n.

This site translates text into Morse code and plays it for you:

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~scp93ch/morse/index.html

They say Tennessee should be:

T e n n e s s e e
_ . _. _. . ... ... . .

I don't see a way to translate that drum file into Morse, maybe someone
else does. I hear your recording as having three values, a half note, a
quarter note, and an eighth note. Using H, Q, and E, one row per
four-beat measure,

1 2 3 4
H H
Q Q Q Q
Q EE Q EE
Q Q H

Maybe you could read the start as "- - -- --" which would be TTMM.

Robert Bannister

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 7:50:04 PM4/29/02
to
Mark Wallace wrote:

I was not aware that Julie Andrews was human. I thought she was some
kind of animated doll. Nice voice, though.

--
Rob Bannister

Mark Wallace

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 7:49:24 PM4/29/02
to

"Gail Gurman" <ga...@homemail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91FF69FAAE...@209.133.64.72...

> "Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote in
> news:aaj96i$b875s$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de:
> > "Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:3CCC8D2D...@it.net.au...
> >> Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
> >>
> >> Doe, a female Julie Andrews.
> >
> > Forgive any dim-wittedness, on my part, but is there any other
kind
> > of Julie Andrews?
>
> Have you seen Victor/Victoria?

The emulation of the physical characteristics of a member of the
opposite sex, by means of disguising one's own physical attributes,
does not impart in one the inherent sexuality of that other gender.

Or, to put it slightly more lucidly:

Squished boobies are still boobies.

--

Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Old Spice -- The Stupidest Story Ever Written
(and the second-best selling e-book in history)
The first volume is now FREE!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/os/freebie.htm
-----------------------------------------------------

R H Draney

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 11:28:11 PM4/29/02
to
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in
news:1fbfd3g.hcxz3c18x8k5cN%tr...@euronet.nl:

A problem with MIDI drums is that unless you jump through a number of
flaming hoops, all drum beats have the same duration...the result is
that a sustained half note is indistinguishable from an eighth note
followed by a dotted quarter rest...had I put the pattern on a tuned
instrument of some kind, it would have sounded more like this:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dadoctah/tennessee.jpg

Granted, the rest after the first E is longer than the remainder of
the conversion suggests it should be, and the standalone dah in the T
is longer than its brethren in the Ns...I suppose the whole thing
could be twiddled to convert TE into a sequence of up-beats and still
keep the whole in 4/4 time....

I remember that a dah is supposed to be three times the length of a
dit, but I'm afraid I've forgotten what the "standard" lengths are for
the spaces between marks and between letters...there's an ARRL
handbook somewhere in the other room, but I'm not even sure if *that*
spells it out in sufficient detail....r

Laura E. Czeschick

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 6:01:56 AM4/30/02
to

"Joe Manfre" <man...@world.std.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnacqmm9....@shell01.TheWorld.com...

Maybe it's pure coincidence, but the similarity to the German "nichts da!"
is striking: it means "that's out of question!" or, as you said: "no
kidding!", pronounced in a way that you hear the exclamation mark.

Laura


Richard Fontana

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 11:44:03 AM4/30/02
to

Newspaper article on "duh":


Copyright 1996 Journal Sentinel Inc.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

July 21, 1996 Sunday All

SECTION: Lifestyle Pg. 4
LENGTH: 526 words
HEADLINE: POPULAR LANGUAGE
Well, no duh! You can look it up


Here's a question: In Webster's next dictionary, what word may soon
pop up between dugout and DUI?
Duh.
That's right. "Duh," the lowly, three-letter interjection and insult
is hoping to take its place among the arcane, the polysyllabic and the
Latin-rooted in the official canon of America English. The editors at
Webster's have it on their short list, along with such current faves
as phat and dis, and will soon decide the fate of duh.
So, after 50 years of flying below linguists' radar, duh finally may
rise into official view. As far as many people are concerned, there is
no question about this one.
Duh has helped millions of people in countless conversations, and it's
about time the little interjection got its due.
"What you're really doing is making a mocking comment of the person
you're talking about," said Mike Agnes, Webster's editorial director
and the man who will decide duh's fate. "It's instantly recognized and
there is an awful lot of meaning in that one word."
Like many words, duh began with kids. Its first recorded use came in a
1943 "Merrie Melodies" cartoon, but its popularity solidified sometime
in the late 1950s as kids realized there was no known comeback to a
good duh-ing.
It spent a couple decades in its original form (the longer,
lower-voiced "duuuuuuuuhhhhhh"), became the abbreviated (but still
flat) duh by 1960, went negative in the early '80s with the Valley
Girls' as "no, duh," and in this decade has settled down as the plain
old duh (upward intonation optional) in use today.
And in use it is.
A quick content analysis shows its media appearances have risen a
whopping 450% in the past two years. Even highbrow publications such
as the Washington Post can't seem to resist:
"We would have ordered a pair of $48 jeans from fashionmall.com," read
a story about Internet shopping, "but the site (duh!) didn't let us
choose an inseam length."
In fact, journalists lately have been hurling duhs with a kind of
unrestrained frenzy, such as the "Duh of the Week" in the Chicago
Sun-Times' sports section (example: "We really haven't had a lot of
playoff success since '89," from a hockey player whose team hasn't won
a playoff game since 1989). And when the Idaho Falls Post Register
panned the movie "The Substitute," they wrote, "The principal (Ernie
Hudson) drives a Lexus, wears $500 suits and a Rolex. Duh, I guess
he's on the take!"
Then there's the Dallas Cowboys, an organization whose very existence
the past couple of years has inspired reams of duhs to spew from
reporters' laser printers. The game against Philadelphia in December
in which Coach Barry Switzer ran the same play twice in a row on
consecutive fourth downs inspired an unprecedented spate of duhspeak:
"Cowboys' Biggest Problem is, Duh, Coach Barry Switzer" (Orlando
Sentinel); "Then duh! Switzer tried for it again" (The Tennessean);
"Huh? What? Duh?" (The Houston Chronicle).
So what makes duh such a perfect insult? Mainly, it's the way it
parodies the subject's intelligence by suggesting that he or she
cannot even form a basic word. You can do some good dissing with a
well-placed duh.

Nrdo Hesson

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 5:54:31 PM4/30/02
to
> > Nrdo
>
> Wanna buy a vowel?

no thanks... i got all the vowels i need

nrdo

--
If you know who you are, Nrdo Hesson
you know who I am. pope...@yahoo.com

Gail Gurman

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 9:11:25 PM4/30/02
to
"Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote in
news:aakmb2$bi7kc$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de:

>
> "Gail Gurman" <ga...@homemail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns91FF69FAAE...@209.133.64.72...
>> "Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote in
>> news:aaj96i$b875s$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de:
>> > "Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
>> > news:3CCC8D2D...@it.net.au...
>> >> Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Doe, a female Julie Andrews.
>> >
>> > Forgive any dim-wittedness, on my part, but is there any other
> kind
>> > of Julie Andrews?
>>
>> Have you seen Victor/Victoria?
>
> The emulation of the physical characteristics of a member of the
> opposite sex, by means of disguising one's own physical attributes,
> does not impart in one the inherent sexuality of that other gender.
>
> Or, to put it slightly more lucidly:
>
> Squished boobies are still boobies.

Whatever. But you have to admit, it was a perfect setup. I couldn't
resist.

GrapeApe

unread,
May 1, 2002, 12:52:57 AM5/1/02
to
I have only seen the sarcastic 'duh!' mentioned the most, but it was also a
genuine 'duh', an utterance showing the slowness or lack of thought process in
a particularly dense speaker.

In that case the distinction might be

Duh = no recognition of situation
Doh!= recognition of situation

Dr Robin Bignall

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 9:02:18 AM4/30/02
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:49:24 +0200, "Mark Wallace"
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:

>
>"Gail Gurman" <ga...@homemail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns91FF69FAAE...@209.133.64.72...
>> "Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote in
>> news:aaj96i$b875s$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de:
>> > "Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
>> > news:3CCC8D2D...@it.net.au...
>> >> Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Doe, a female Julie Andrews.
>> >
>> > Forgive any dim-wittedness, on my part, but is there any other
>kind
>> > of Julie Andrews?
>>
>> Have you seen Victor/Victoria?
>
>The emulation of the physical characteristics of a member of the
>opposite sex, by means of disguising one's own physical attributes,
>does not impart in one the inherent sexuality of that other gender.
>
>Or, to put it slightly more lucidly:
>
>Squished boobies are still boobies.

I bet there's a rose or some other flower called 'Julie Andrews'. If
not, there should be. My knowledge of botany, birds and bees is
slight, but doesn't that imply the involvement of a male julie andrews
at some stage of the process?

--

wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)

steve_h

unread,
May 22, 2002, 9:56:25 AM5/22/02
to

Donna Richoux wrote:
>
> Richard Fontana <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> wrote:
>
> > As I indicated in my previous posting, I think this spelling suggests some
> > sort of connection with "duh". Like Homer is starting to say
> > "duh" (appropriate, since he's a sort of slow-witted, if loveable,
> > guy) but then, realizing the chagrin, turns it into "d'oh!". It's like a
> > contraction of "duh!" and "oh!". I can't see how else to explain why they
> > spell it with the apostrophe.

I seem to recall a documentary in which Dan Castellenata explained that "D'oh"
is
a short version of the "Doh!" used by Ben Turpin in the Laurel and Hardy films.

Steve

Mark Wallace

unread,
May 22, 2002, 10:52:06 AM5/22/02
to

Ah, so the "" is elided.
Finally, I understand.

--

Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Doctor Charles.
You can trust him.
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/doc01.htm
-----------------------------------------------------

Don Aitken

unread,
May 22, 2002, 4:31:40 PM5/22/02
to
"D'oh!" is also the favorite interjection of Mr Wilkins, in the
"Jennings" stories by Anthony Buckeridge, which began publication
decades before Homer Simpson was ever heard of. People find it amusing
because it is familiar. The Simpsons scriptwriters did *not* invent
it.

--
Don Aitken

Donna Richoux

unread,
May 22, 2002, 5:12:37 PM5/22/02
to
Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2002 15:56:25 +0200, steve_h
> <steve....@bigfoot.co.m> wrote:
> >
> >Donna Richoux wrote:

For the record, I didn't say any of this. Steve_h snipped what I said
without snipping the attribution line.

> >>
> >> Richard Fontana <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > As I indicated in my previous posting, I think this spelling suggests
> >> > some sort of connection with "duh". Like Homer is starting to say
> >> > "duh" (appropriate, since he's a sort of slow-witted, if loveable,
> >> > guy) but then, realizing the chagrin, turns it into "d'oh!". It's
> >> > like a contraction of "duh!" and "oh!". I can't see how else to
> >> > explain why they spell it with the apostrophe.
> >
> >I seem to recall a documentary in which Dan Castellenata explained that
> >"D'oh" is a short version of the "Doh!" used by Ben Turpin in the Laurel
> >and Hardy films.
> >
> "D'oh!" is also the favorite interjection of Mr Wilkins, in the
> "Jennings" stories by Anthony Buckeridge, which began publication
> decades before Homer Simpson was ever heard of. People find it amusing
> because it is familiar. The Simpsons scriptwriters did *not* invent
> it.

Originate vs. popularize, originate vs. popularize... the continual
dilemma. What a mouthful, though. We need a simpler phrase, something
catchy, like "fight or flight." "Start or spread"? "Provide or promote"?
"Hatch or hype"? "Coin or --"? "Invent or --" What?

Best -- Donna Richoux

R H Draney

unread,
May 23, 2002, 2:22:25 AM5/23/02
to
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in
news:1fclwsi.iuyrgz66ivuzN%tr...@euronet.nl:

> Originate vs. popularize, originate vs. popularize... the
> continual dilemma. What a mouthful, though. We need a simpler
> phrase, something catchy, like "fight or flight." "Start or
> spread"? "Provide or promote"? "Hatch or hype"? "Coin or --"?
> "Invent or --" What?

First think that came to mind was "whelp or wield"....

Then "innovate or imitate"..."supply or apply" (requires
misaccenting to work)....

Aha!..."father or further"!...r

Donna Richoux

unread,
May 23, 2002, 6:51:24 AM5/23/02
to
R H Draney <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Oh, that's awfully good, both in meaning and in sound. Now, if it wasn't
for this leetle problem that women never father anything...

"he fathered" 9,000
"she fathered" 61

a fair number of which appear to be about men who changed their sex.

R H Draney

unread,
May 23, 2002, 11:22:58 AM5/23/02
to
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in
news:1fcmsuz.ijcw0ls287k0N%tr...@euronet.nl:

> R H Draney <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Aha!..."father or further"!...r
>
> Oh, that's awfully good, both in meaning and in sound. Now, if it
> wasn't for this leetle problem that women never father anything...

They could if they wanted to, or what's a meta for?...r

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,
May 23, 2002, 3:23:01 PM5/23/02
to
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) writes:

> Oh, that's awfully good, both in meaning and in sound. Now, if it
> wasn't for this leetle problem that women never father anything...
>
> "he fathered" 9,000
> "she fathered" 61
>
> a fair number of which appear to be about men who changed their sex.

On the other hand, there are 1,510 hits for "he gave birth". And 408
hits for "she sired", nearly all having to do with the TV show _Buffy,
the Vampire Slayer_, in which "sire" is used for the process of
creating a vampire, apparently regardless of the sex of the vampire
doing the job.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |quite another to be willfully
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |ignorant
| Cecil Adams
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages