"nom d'un petit bonhomme"
Bob Cunningham
my Berkley paperback edition, ISBN 0-425-06782-3), Hercule
Poirot say "Nom d'un petit bonhomme". He then tells his
servant, George, that it's "a mere ejaculation". The rest
of the context doesn't seem to shed any light on the meaning
of the phrase.
At http://ets.freetranslation.com/ it gives the translation
"name of a small fellow". That seems like a reasonable
literal translation, but I suspect there's some meaning of
the overall phrase that goes beyond the literal meanings of
the words. Is it a well-known phrase? Can anyone say how
it originated or what its implication is?
Babelfish, http://tinyurl.com/3yfcv4 , says the ejaculation
means "name of a small catch". Is that a gross error, or is
there some way that "bonhomme" can be taken to mean "catch"?
Leslie Danks
> In Agatha Christie's _Elephants Can Remember_ (page 114 in
> my Berkley paperback edition, ISBN 0-425-06782-3), Hercule
> Poirot say "Nom d'un petit bonhomme". He then tells his
> servant, George, that it's "a mere ejaculation". The rest
> of the context doesn't seem to shed any light on the meaning
> of the phrase.
According to this:
"NOM D'UN! : Nom d'un nom ! Nom d'une pipe ! Nom d'un petit bonhomme! nom
d'un tonnerre! -- Jurons innocents chargés d'exprimer la colère, la
surprise ou l'admiration. -- « 86,000 fr. par an ! Nom d'un petit
bonhomme ! c'est joli. » -- L. Reybaud. -- Nom d'un petit bonhomme est une
allusion aux statuettes qui représentent le Christ. -- « Nom d'une pipe! si
vous m'approchez... » -- Mélesville, 1830"
<http://abu.cnam.fr/DICO/excent/n.html>
[...]
HTH
--
Les
Purl Gurl
Here are some links which will help,
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/1010550
(scroll down to "Good grief" then down to " interjections")
http://forum.wordreference.com/archive/index.php/t-131891.html
(scroll down to "geve" on 16th April 2006, 02:52 AM)
A JSTOR link you cannot access,
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8715(189401%2F03)7%3A24%3C69%3AOTOOSP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
Goggle quotes jstor:
"nom d'un petit bonhomme! " or " bonhomme de bois!"
in allusion to popular images of the Virgin and Child.
"...fait allusion à Jésus enfant."
Dictionnaire historique d'argot By Lorédan Larchey
--
Purl Gurl
--
"Then again what can you expect from a fat-assed, champagne swilling,
half-breed just off the Rez?"
- Joe Kline
CDB
> In Agatha Christie's _Elephants Can Remember_ (page 114 in
> my Berkley paperback edition, ISBN 0-425-06782-3), Hercule
> Poirot say "Nom d'un petit bonhomme". He then tells his
> servant, George, that it's "a mere ejaculation". The rest
> of the context doesn't seem to shed any light on the meaning
> of the phrase.
>
> At http://ets.freetranslation.com/ it gives the translation
> "name of a small fellow". That seems like a reasonable
> literal translation, but I suspect there's some meaning of
> the overall phrase that goes beyond the literal meanings of
> the words. Is it a well-known phrase? Can anyone say how
> it originated or what its implication is?
By the little fellow! Poirot used it as an avoidance-term for "By
Christ". _Le Trésor de la Langue Française_ has:
b) Nom d'un petit bonhomme! Juron inoffensif (cf. BALZAC, Eugénie
Grandet, 1834, p. 190; BERNANOS, Un Crime, 1935, p. 808, etc.).
Rem. D'apr. Larchey (Les Excentricités du lang. ..., 1865, p. 221) :
,,Nom d'un petit bonhomme est une allusion aux statuettes qui
représentent le Christ.``
An inoffensive oath, used in the works of Balzac and Bernanos. One
commentator says explicitly that it's an allusion to statuettes of
Christ (meaning crucifixes, I suppose).
>
> Babelfish, http://tinyurl.com/3yfcv4 , says the ejaculation
> means "name of a small catch". Is that a gross error, or is
> there some way that "bonhomme" can be taken to mean "catch"?
Never heard of it. Name of a Babelfish! There is a game called
something like "le bonhomme vit encore (is still alive)", involving
the passing-on of a burning match or spill, the loser being the one
holding it when it goes out. That kind of "catch", maybe?
Literally the word means "goodman". These days, it usually has
connotations of familiarity or even disparagement. It can also mean a
sketch; "les bonhommes" (in Canada without the "s" inflection of
"bon", I think, although _Le T_ says that's "populaire"; and I don't
think they mean it's widely esteemed) are the funny papers. A
"bonhomme de neige" is a snowman. Bonhomme Carnaval is the giant
snowman mascot of the winter carnival at Quebec City.
Bob Cunningham
<purl...@purlgurl.net> said:
[lots of good stuff]
Marvelous, PG. Thanks ever so much. Best of all was
> "...fait allusion à Jésus enfant."
>
> Dictionnaire historique d'argot By Lorédan Larchey
which I assume means in English "makes allusion to the
infant Jesus".
the Omrud
Sure, but simpler, "refers to the infant Jesus" (although the English
more often say "the baby Jesus").
--
David
=====
Bob Cunningham
Merci beaucoup.
Bob Cunningham
Thank you.
Cruising the Web in search of help on this, I've seen a few
allusions to making a guide to Agatha Christie's French
phrases. One person even tells of wanting to write a book
on the subject. I wonder if anyone has ever done it.
I've started doing a little of that. It would save me a lot
of trouble to find out it's already been done.
It would best be done by someone who is fluent in both
English and French and is reasonably well acquainted with
French culture.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> An inoffensive oath, used in the works of Balzac and Bernanos. One
> commentator says explicitly that it's an allusion to statuettes of
> Christ (meaning crucifixes, I suppose).
>
> Name of a Babelfish! There is a game called
> something like "le bonhomme vit encore (is still alive)", involving
> the passing-on of a burning match or spill, the loser being the one
> holding it when it goes out. That kind of "catch", maybe?
>
> Literally the word means "goodman". These days, it usually has
> connotations of familiarity or even disparagement. It can also mean a
> sketch; "les bonhommes" (in Canada without the "s" inflection of
> "bon", I think, although _Le T_ says that's "populaire"; and I don't
> think they mean it's widely esteemed) are the funny papers. A
> "bonhomme de neige" is a snowman. Bonhomme Carnaval is the giant
> snowman mascot of the winter carnival at Quebec City.
Bonhomme de pain d'épices = gingerbread man. But let's not forget the
immortal Roman camp of Petitbonum, tout près de Babaorum.
--
Mike.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Prai Jei
<22rt53d63p5fpq172...@4ax.com>:
> In Agatha Christie's _Elephants Can Remember_ (page 114 in
> my Berkley paperback edition, ISBN 0-425-06782-3), Hercule
> Poirot say "Nom d'un petit bonhomme". He then tells his
> servant, George, that it's "a mere ejaculation". The rest
> of the context doesn't seem to shed any light on the meaning
> of the phrase.
Probably it has just about the same meaning as "nom d'un chien" or "nom d'un
pipe". Why should invoking the name of a dog or a pipe constitute a mild
oath?
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
bri...@wsu.edu
>-- Nom d'un petit bonhomme est une
> allusion aux statuettes qui représentent le Christ.
Presumably a jocular version of the traditional oath, "Nom de Dieu!"
Paul Brians
CDB
> CDB wrote:
> [...]
>> An inoffensive oath, used in the works of Balzac and Bernanos. One
>> commentator says explicitly that it's an allusion to statuettes of
>> Christ (meaning crucifixes, I suppose).
> [...]
[1001 uses for a bonhomme; 1002, if...]
>
> Bonhomme de pain d'épices = gingerbread man. But let's not forget
> the immortal Roman camp of Petitbonum, tout près de Babaorum.
His name is legion. I see from Purl Gurl's post that this one is the
Baby, not the Suffering, Jesus. Makes more sense, now that she
mentions it.
John Kane
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
> > In Agatha Christie's _Elephants Can Remember_ (page 114 in
> > my Berkley paperback edition, ISBN 0-425-06782-3), Hercule
> > Poirot say "Nom d'un petit bonhomme". He then tells his
> > servant, George, that it's "a mere ejaculation". The rest
> > of the context doesn't seem to shed any light on the meaning
> > of the phrase.
> > "name of a small fellow". That seems like a reasonable
> > literal translation, but I suspect there's some meaning of
> > the overall phrase that goes beyond the literal meanings of
> > the words. Is it a well-known phrase? Can anyone say how
> > it originated or what its implication is?
> > means "name of a small catch". Is that a gross error, or is
> > there some way that "bonhomme" can be taken to mean "catch"?
>
> Here are some links which will help,
>
> http://www.proz.com/kudoz/1010550
> (scroll down to "Good grief" then down to " interjections")
>
> http://forum.wordreference.com/archive/index.php/t-131891.html
> (scroll down to "geve" on 16th April 2006, 02:52 AM)
>
> A JSTOR link you cannot access,
>
>
> Goggle quotes jstor:
>
> "nom d'un petit bonhomme! " or " bonhomme de bois!"
> in allusion to popular images of the Virgin and Child.
>
>
> "...fait allusion à Jésus enfant."
>
> Dictionnaire historique d'argot By Lorédan Larchey
>
> --
> Purl Gurl
> --
> "Then again what can you expect from a fat-assed, champagne swilling,
> half-breed just off the Rez?"
> - Joe Kline
Thanks some nice links ( I can access the JSTOR) . Now for
'tabernac".
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
Bob Cunningham
<bri...@wsu.edu> said:
Are you confident it's more jocular than euphemistic?
bri...@wsu.edu
Euphemistic _and_ jocular. Calling Jesus a "little man" is clearly a
joke.
R H Draney
>
>On May 31, 5:01 pm, Bob Cunningham <exw6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 31 May 2007 14:50:03 -0700, "bri...@wsu.edu"
>> <bri...@wsu.edu> said:
>>
>> > On May 31, 9:01 am, Leslie Danks <Leslie.Da...@aon.at> wrote:
>> > >-- Nom d'un petit bonhomme est une
>>
>> > Presumably a jocular version of the traditional oath, "Nom de Dieu!"
>>
>
>Euphemistic _and_ jocular. Calling Jesus a "little man" is clearly a
>joke.
He wasn't particularly big...the Beatles were bigger....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Bob Cunningham
<bri...@wsu.edu> said:
> On May 31, 5:01 pm, Bob Cunningham <exw6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On 31 May 2007 14:50:03 -0700, "bri...@wsu.edu"
> > <bri...@wsu.edu> said:
> >
> > > On May 31, 9:01 am, Leslie Danks <Leslie.Da...@aon.at> wrote:
> > > >-- Nom d'un petit bonhomme est une
> > > > allusion aux statuettes qui représentent le Christ.
> >
> > > Presumably a jocular version of the traditional oath, "Nom de Dieu!"
> >
> > > Paul Brians
> >
> > Are you confident it's more jocular than euphemistic?
>
> Euphemistic _and_ jocular. Calling Jesus a "little man" is clearly a
> joke.
It's not so jocular when you remember that the reference is
to the infant, not the man.
Bob Cunningham
> Op Thu, 31 May 2007 21:44:07 +0100, schreef Prai Jei:
>
> > Bob Cunningham (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in
> > message <22rt53d63p5fpq172...@4ax.com>:
> >
> >> In Agatha Christie's _Elephants Can Remember_ (page 114 in my Berkley
> >> paperback edition, ISBN 0-425-06782-3), Hercule Poirot say "Nom d'un
> >> petit bonhomme". He then tells his servant, George, that it's "a mere
> >> ejaculation". The rest of the context doesn't seem to shed any light
> >> on the meaning of the phrase.
> >
> > Probably it has just about the same meaning as "nom d'un chien" or "nom
> > d'un pipe". Why should invoking the name of a dog or a pipe constitute a
> > mild oath?
>
> It is a jocular euphemism for "nom de Dieu", a *very* common phrase in
> French that is clearly an alllusion to the commandment not to use the
> name of God in vain. "God damn it" or any form thereof would be the most
> likely English translation of "nom de Dieu" because it is used in similar
> circumstances.
>
> If even "nom de Dieu" (itself a euphemism) is considered too rude, Dieu
> is replaced with whatever comes to mind for humourous effect.
I seem to remember seeing somewhere "nom d'un nom d'un nom".
But I continue to see nothing humorous about referring to
the infant Jesus as a little man.
Donna Richoux
> But I continue to see nothing humorous about referring to
> the infant Jesus as a little man.
What I was taught in my French class was that "bonhomme" referred to a
round, jolly man like Santa Claus.
Most of the Google Images show "bonhomme de neige" or snowman. Two that
don't:
http://recettes.viabloga.com/news/bonhomme-de-radis
http://www.linuxgraphic.org/albums/album47/bonhomme.jpg
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Bob Cunningham
The Web site wordreference.com has forums that are initiated
by readers to discuss and get help on language issues. Each
issue becomes a "forum". At this time there are some forums
on "bonhomme". In one of them, a contributor named
Spiderkat, who says he or she is "Native of: French, France"
( which I take to mean a native speaker of French and a
native inhabitant of France) says the following:
The term _bonhomme_ may be translated as chap,
fellow, man, etc. depending on the context. Also, its
meaning may be positive or negative depending on
the person you name this way. For instance,
-you can say _mon petit bonhomme_ to a kid which
means little fellow or sonny.
-when you say _ton bonhomme de mari_, it means
your stupid/naive husband.
-_un bonhomme de neige_ simply means a snowman.
-the term _bonhomme_ itself may be used to
designate a husband.
We also use this term in expressions such as
_poursuivre son petit bonhomme de chemin_ which
means to keep doing things with no hurry at all.
In another "bonhomme" forum, a contributor called Vache
Espagnole, who is "Native of England, English", says
The thing with "bonhomme" is that it could mean 'chap'
but it could equally mean 'erect penis'!
(I doubt that the word "equally" is well chosen there.)
In yet another "bonhomme" forum, a contributor called
jhdicamillo (and signing herself "Jessica"), "Native of:
U.S. - English", says
I don't know if anyone has heard the really
gorgeous song by Brazilian Girls called "Homme,"
but I can't seem to figure out the first line:
"Donne l'impression d'un petit bonhomme." I've
looked at lots of French-English dictionaries and
the best I've gotten for "bonhomme" is "chap" or
"fellow," which do not make sense to me in context.
Does anyone know a better translation?
An answer to that question follows it, contributed by
Nico5992, "Native of: France (French)", and saying
"Petit bonhomme" may be a term of endearment for
"little boy". But off [sic] course it depends on the
context.
Anyway, I continue to believe the infant Jesus is a known
and unhumorous reference of a term of endearment "un petit
bonhomme".
Bob Cunningham
> Op Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:38:19 -0700, schreef Bob Cunningham:
>
>
> > I seem to remember seeing somewhere "nom d'un nom d'un nom".
> >
> > But I continue to see nothing humorous about referring to the infant
> > Jesus as a little man.
>
> The bonhomme in this context has nothing to do with JC.
What might you have to say about the following reference
that was supplied by my friend Purl Gurl (
http://tinyurl.com/27evcw ):
[_nom d'un petit bonhomme_]
"...fait allusion à Jésus enfant."
Dictionnaire historique d'argot By Lorédan Larchey
?
Bob Cunningham
On 02 Jun 2007 09:08:54 GMT, nmp <add...@is.invalid> said:
> Op Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:59:17 -0700, schreef Bob Cunningham:
> I would say that Larchey above is only remotely right. That is, if you
> want to hear an allusion to JC in the expression, of course you can. But
> you are not required to.
>
> Let me explain the joke for you. It is a playful way to avoid the taboo
> surrounding the name of God.
>
> Imagine yourself being a young Frenchman a few hundred years ago who has,
> as would have been the norm, a devout Catholic grandmother, who would
> always give you a clip around the ear for using any disrespectful
> language. Now, there is some sort of situation and you would naturally
> start off with a heartfelt "Nom d'". But you would have her attention
> immediately and she gives you that vicious "don't you dare say it, boy"
> look. So, quickly, you substitute "un petit bonhomme" for "Dieu", thereby
> avoiding the whack. And you get to celebrate a little victory over your
> grandmother, feeling all clever and smug and pleased with yourself,
> because of course you *did* mean to say "nom de Dieu" but you didn't and
> now she is frustrated because she can't punish you.
>
> So, a new euphemism is born and it enters the vernacular. And endless
> variations see the light.
>
> For strongest (less euphemistic) effect, the thing you would say the
> "name of" would always be something contemptible or "dirty". Implied is
> an insult to the name God, to rile up your grandmother even *more*
> without giving her an excuse to whack you.
>
> When your grandmother calls you a petit bonhomme she means that as a term
> of endearment. You are being a good, obedient, respectful kid. But your
> age peers will then ridicule you for being your grandmother's bonhomme.
> Prai Jei mentioned "nom de chien". I think that one is obvious, dogs are
> dirty, have fleas and such. Another one is "nome d'un pipe". Of course un
> pipe is also a pipe, but the reference to oral sex (pipe = blowjob, once
> understood to be a sinful activity) is not lost on anyone.
>
> I also hear "nom d'une putain" (name of a whore), et cetera.
>
> But if you want to be polite while still using an expletive you could as
> well say "sacré nom d'un teddy bear" of "nom d'une automobile" or
> whatever - and everybody will still understand and they will laugh at the
> most surreal, clever combinations that you can come up with. Endless
> source of humour.
I understand your point of view, but I choose to think
you've wandered off on a tangent and strayed too far from
the likely truth.
I prefer to believe that the person who first uttered the
euphemism had in mind "Name of Jesus!" and substituted "un
petit bonhomme" for "Jesus" to avoid offending whoever might
be offended by the profane version.
When confronted with diverse possibilities, the simplest is
likely to be the best. I think there's a name for that
principle, but it doesn't come to mind at the moment.
Peter Moylan
> When confronted with diverse possibilities, the simplest is
> likely to be the best. I think there's a name for that
> principle, but it doesn't come to mind at the moment.
Something to do with "who shaves William?"
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Al in Dallas
<pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
>> When confronted with diverse possibilities, the simplest is
>> likely to be the best. I think there's a name for that
>> principle, but it doesn't come to mind at the moment.
>
>Something to do with "who shaves William?"
Well done!
--
Al in St. Lou
Bob Cunningham
> Op Sat, 02 Jun 2007 03:14:42 -0700, schreef Bob Cunningham:
>
> > I understand your point of view, but I choose to think you've wandered
> > off on a tangent and strayed too far from the likely truth.
>
> I'm rather sure I did not, but of course I will give my explanation up
> for a better one.
>
> > I prefer to believe that the person who first uttered the euphemism had
> > in mind "Name of Jesus!" and substituted "un petit bonhomme" for "Jesus"
> > to avoid offending whoever might be offended by the profane version.
> >
> > When confronted with diverse possibilities, the simplest is likely to be
> > the best. I think there's a name for that principle, but it doesn't
> > come to mind at the moment.
>
> Occam's razor.
>
> It does not apply the way you think however. "Nom de Jésus" is not really
> used in French as an expletive. "Nom de Dieu" is used daily and
> universally, whenever someone hits his thumb with a hammer, or finds
> himself in a traffic jam for example. Its power as an oath comes from the
> fact that it is in straight defiance of Exodus 20:7 / Deuteronomy 5:11,
> the third of the Ten Commandments.
>
> Notice that even when using this particular oath, they would not *quite*
> say the name of God (which is YHWH of course). So even "nom de Dieu" is
> in itself a euphemism - but it is still offensive enough.
>
> All the other examples of "name of" that I mentioned are used also.
The acceptability of your logic seems to collapse in view of
a small likelihood that in casting about for nonsensical
random substitutes for "Dieu" in "nom de Dieu", someone
would light on "un petit bonhomme" without attaching any
significance to it.
Isabelle Cecchini
[...]
>
> I prefer to believe that the person who first uttered the
> euphemism had in mind "Name of Jesus!" and substituted "un
> petit bonhomme" for "Jesus" to avoid offending whoever might
> be offended by the profane version.
I'll just add to what nmp has already, and very judiciously explained,
that "Jésus" or "Jésus-Christ", unlike what happens in English-speaking
countries, is not used as a swear-word in French --at least in France,
because I can't speak for the French-speakers in Quebec, as they have
all sorts of religiously coloured, and colourful, swear-words.
"Doux Jésus !" expresses surprise, and is definitely not blasphemous,
while "Jésus, Marie, Joseph !" is an exclamation of dismay, favoured by
pious Catholic women of a certain age and tradition.
In "Nom d'un petit bonhomme", I hear "petit bonhomme" as a light-hearted
addition to "Nom de ...". It's a way of defusing the swear-word. I'd
steer clear of anybody saying "Nom de Dieu !", at least for a while,
until he -- and yes, it would be a "he", in most cases-- calmed down,
whereas I'd have no qualms in calmly pursuing a conversation with
anybody who exclaimed "Nom d'un petit bonhomme".
A "petit bonhomme" can be understood as meaning a "small boy". It's a
phrase uttered with tenderness, and with a smile in your voice. "Nom
d'un petit bonhomme" benefits from that association: it can't be a real
swear-word; there'll always be a twinkle in the eye of whoever utters
that phrase, and "jocular", or "light-hearted", or "fun", or "don't take
me seriously, I'm not really angry, just pretending" seems to sum up the
connotations of that phrase.
--
Isabelle Cecchini
Arcadian Rises
<isabelle.cecch...@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote:
> Bob Cunningham a crit :
> [...]
>
>
>
> > I prefer to believe that the person who first uttered the
> > euphemism had in mind "Name of Jesus!" and substituted "un
> > petit bonhomme" for "Jesus" to avoid offending whoever might
> > be offended by the profane version.
>
> I'll just add to what nmp has already, and very judiciously explained,
> countries, is not used as a swear-word in French --at least in France,
> because I can't speak for the French-speakers in Quebec, as they have
> all sorts of religiously coloured, and colourful, swear-words.
>
> while "J sus, Marie, Joseph !" is an exclamation of dismay, favoured by
> pious Catholic women of a certain age and tradition.
>
> In "Nom d'un petit bonhomme", I hear "petit bonhomme" as a light-hearted
> addition to "Nom de ...". It's a way of defusing the swear-word. I'd
> steer clear of anybody saying "Nom de Dieu !", at least for a while,
> until he -- and yes, it would be a "he", in most cases-- calmed down,
> whereas I'd have no qualms in calmly pursuing a conversation with
> anybody who exclaimed "Nom d'un petit bonhomme".
>
> A "petit bonhomme" can be understood as meaning a "small boy". It's a
> phrase uttered with tenderness, and with a smile in your voice. "Nom
> d'un petit bonhomme" benefits from that association: it can't be a real
> swear-word; there'll always be a twinkle in the eye of whoever utters
> that phrase, and "jocular", or "light-hearted", or "fun", or "don't take
> me seriously, I'm not really angry, just pretending" seems to sum up the
> connotations of that phrase.
What about "Pour l'amour de Dieu"? Is it stronger than the above-
mentioned, milder, or just more pathetique?
Frank ess
> seems to sum up the connotations of that phrase.'
Holey Moley!
bert
> In Agatha Christie's _Elephants Can Remember_ (page 114 in
> my Berkley paperback edition, ISBN 0-425-06782-3), Hercule
> servant, George, that it's "a mere ejaculation". The rest
> of the context doesn't seem to shed any light on the meaning
> of the phrase.
>
> "name of a small fellow". That seems like a reasonable
> literal translation, but I suspect there's some meaning of
> the overall phrase that goes beyond the literal meanings of
> the words. Is it a well-known phrase? Can anyone say how
> it originated or what its implication is?
Whatever its usage or implication in French, it echoes
remarkably accurately an old-fashioned Glasgow expression
of surprise: "In the name o' the wee man!" which I often
heard used by a friend of my mother's. Imagine it being
said in an upper-class West End accent. But I don't think
I've heard it in forty years now.
--
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:09:51 +0200:
> Bob Cunningham a écrit :
> [...]
> >
> > I prefer to believe that the person who first uttered the
> > euphemism had in mind "Name of Jesus!" and substituted "un
> > petit bonhomme" for "Jesus" to avoid offending whoever might
> > be offended by the profane version.
>
> I'll just add to what nmp has already, and very judiciously explained,
> that "Jésus" or "Jésus-Christ", unlike what happens in English-speaking
> countries, is not used as a swear-word in French --at least in France,
> because I can't speak for the French-speakers in Quebec, as they have
> all sorts of religiously coloured, and colourful, swear-words.
>
> "Doux Jésus !" expresses surprise, and is definitely not blasphemous,
> while "Jésus, Marie, Joseph !" is an exclamation of dismay, favoured by
> pious Catholic women of a certain age and tradition.
Both of these in the form of "Sweet Jesus" and "Jesus, Mary and Joseph"
are commonly used in Ireland with the same non-blasphemous intent.
> In "Nom d'un petit bonhomme", I hear "petit bonhomme" as a light-hearted
> addition to "Nom de ...". It's a way of defusing the swear-word. I'd
> steer clear of anybody saying "Nom de Dieu !", at least for a while,
> until he -- and yes, it would be a "he", in most cases-- calmed down,
> whereas I'd have no qualms in calmly pursuing a conversation with
> anybody who exclaimed "Nom d'un petit bonhomme".
>
> A "petit bonhomme" can be understood as meaning a "small boy". It's a
> phrase uttered with tenderness, and with a smile in your voice. "Nom
> d'un petit bonhomme" benefits from that association: it can't be a real
> swear-word; there'll always be a twinkle in the eye of whoever utters
> that phrase, and "jocular", or "light-hearted", or "fun", or "don't take
> me seriously, I'm not really angry, just pretending" seems to sum up the
> connotations of that phrase.
--
Nick Spalding
Bob Cunningham
> Op Sat, 02 Jun 2007 10:30:36 -0700, schreef Bob Cunningham:
>
> > The acceptability of your logic seems to collapse in view of a small
> > likelihood that in casting about for nonsensical random substitutes for
> > "Dieu" in "nom de Dieu", someone would light on "un petit bonhomme"
> > without attaching any significance to it.
>
> Well, but they would.
Your credibility has deteriorated still further in view of
your willingness to state as absolute fact something you
can't know for certain is true.
We know that the phrase "nom d'un petit bonhomme" has been
in the language since at the latest 1878 when Larchey's
historical dictionary of argot was published. That gives us
evidence that there was at least one scholar and probably
more people at that time who believed the phrase referred to
Jesus. For your adamant assertions to be true, you would
need solid evidence to show that no one has ever believed
that.
Furthermore, I find the word "historical" in the title of
Larchey's dictionary quite significant. It suggests that
the phrase went back much further than the 19th century.
> So?
So I think we have both said enough on this subject, and I
would be willing to consider the subject to be closed as far
as you and I are concerned. Nothing you have said persuades
me to believe that no one has ever thought of "un petit
bonhomme" as referring to Jesus or to a small statuette of
Jesus. If you go on posting on the subject, I doubt that
you'll say anything really new.
I could cite other references to "un petit bonhomme"
referring to Jesus in some sense, but I won't. Anyone who's
sufficiently interested can do the Google search.
Purl Gurl has cited two, ( in http://tinyurl.com/yp9rem ),
the JSTOR quotation and Larchey's dictionary.
John Kane
<isabelle.cecch...@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote:
> Bob Cunningham a écrit :
> [...]
>
>
>
> > I prefer to believe that the person who first uttered the
> > euphemism had in mind "Name of Jesus!" and substituted "un
> > petit bonhomme" for "Jesus" to avoid offending whoever might
> > be offended by the profane version.
>
> I'll just add to what nmp has already, and very judiciously explained,
> that "Jésus" or "Jésus-Christ", unlike what happens in English-speaking
> countries, is not used as a swear-word in French --at least in France,
> because I can't speak for the French-speakers in Quebec, as they have
> all sorts of religiously coloured, and colourful, swear-words.
One hears "Jésus-Christ" but not that often. Taber.., is much more
likely.
A francophone friend tells me that French and Canadien swearwords are
almost mutually exclusive.
Peter Moylan
> What about "Pour l'amour de Dieu"? Is it stronger than the above-
> mentioned, milder, or just more pathetique?
I've encountered that in only one place, in the obvious song. Perhaps
pious people still say it, but to me it brings up a picture of 18th- or
19th-century beggars.
Peter Moylan
> Both of these in the form of "Sweet Jesus" and "Jesus, Mary and
> Joseph" are commonly used in Ireland with the same non-blasphemous
> intent.
At present I'm embroiled in a personal crisis, the details of which
aren't really suitable for an open forum. When I gave the details in
e-mail to a small handful of people, a response from an Irish friend
included the words "I'll pray for you". That's something not often
encountered in Australia, and some would interpret it as a slightly
offensive forcing of that person's religious views on them. I had to
remind myself that the religious tradition is still very strong in Ireland.
Roland Hutchinson
> Arcadian Rises wrote:
>
>> What about "Pour l'amour de Dieu"? Is it stronger than the above-
>> mentioned, milder, or just more pathetique?
>
> I've encountered that in only one place, in the obvious song. Perhaps
> pious people still say it, but to me it brings up a picture of 18th- or
> 19th-century beggars.
Puts me in the mind of Edgar Allan Poe, it does.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:55:02 +1000:
> Nick Spalding wrote:
>
> > Both of these in the form of "Sweet Jesus" and "Jesus, Mary and
> > Joseph" are commonly used in Ireland with the same non-blasphemous
> > intent.
>
> At present I'm embroiled in a personal crisis, the details of which
> aren't really suitable for an open forum. When I gave the details in
> e-mail to a small handful of people, a response from an Irish friend
> included the words "I'll pray for you". That's something not often
> encountered in Australia, and some would interpret it as a slightly
> offensive forcing of that person's religious views on them. I had to
> remind myself that the religious tradition is still very strong in Ireland.
Among those of a certain age. The younger people, my children for
instance who range in age from 36 to 46, ignore religion though some (not
my lot) go through the motions for the purpose of getting married and so
on to avoid upsetting their parents. My kids took after me rather than
their mother in that respect.
--
Nick Spalding
Nick Atty
I'm pretty sure that I came across this in "The Labours Of Hercules"
which was on the bookshelves in the cottage I've just come back from
spending a week at.
I'm also reminded of the goonish:
"Name of a dog"
"Rover!"
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
Arcadian Rises
> Nick Spalding wrote:
> > Both of these in the form of "Sweet Jesus" and "Jesus, Mary and
> > Joseph" are commonly used in Ireland with the same non-blasphemous
> > intent.
>
> At present I'm embroiled in a personal crisis, the details of which
> aren't really suitable for an open forum. When I gave the details in
> e-mail to a small handful of people, a response from an Irish friend
> included the words "I'll pray for you". That's something not often
> encountered in Australia, and some would interpret it as a slightly
> offensive forcing of that person's religious views on them. I had to
> remind myself that the religious tradition is still very strong in Ireland.
>
I 've never took it as a religious matter, but rather as an etiquette
issue.
When someone spills his guts about a personal tragedy you _got_ to say
something; changing the subject e.g. "And other than tha Mrs. Lincoln,
how did you enjoy the show?", won't do it.
And no matter what you say besides "I'm so sorry" is no good; either
it's patronising ("Better to love and loose than never to love"); or a
plain blunder, like "better dead and out of misery; I'm sure, in due
time, you'll find someone else". By comparison, "I'll pray for you" is
a real blessing, even for the most millitant atheist.
CDB
> Bob Cunningham a écrit :
> [...]
>>
>> I prefer to believe that the person who first uttered the
>> euphemism had in mind "Name of Jesus!" and substituted "un
>> petit bonhomme" for "Jesus" to avoid offending whoever might
>> be offended by the profane version.
>
> I'll just add to what nmp has already, and very judiciously
> explained, that "Jésus" or "Jésus-Christ", unlike what happens in
> English-speaking countries, is not used as a swear-word in French
> --at least in France, because I can't speak for the French-speakers
> in Quebec, as they have all sorts of religiously coloured, and
> colourful, swear-words.
I haven't noticed that they commonly use the name of Jesus as an
expletive, although you might hear something like "crisse de calvaire
d'osti" occasionally, and "en crisse" means "en colère". You could
also hear someone addressed as "mon 'ti-crisse" during a
dressing-down. Back to le petit bonhomme?
Shani
little man but rather the little baby who was sacrificed at the spring
renewal pagan feasts in the old times. Somebody said the same
expression existed ('in the name of the wee man') in Ireland (or was
it Wales? sorry I forgto and I'm too lazy to read it again) so I think
it's a remnant of the old religions more than it is associated with
Jesus. Anyway that's just my opinion.
Cha
Shani
une crise (noun) = crisis (crisser (verb)= make the sound of nails on
blackboard)
un calvaire (noun): a terrible and insupportable ordeal.
There is no idiomatic sentence using 'crise' and 'calvaire' together
that I know of.
I have no idea what the rest of the expressions you wrote are supposed
to be and have never heard them, yet I'm a native french-speaker. Do
you have maybe another spelling?
CDB
> CDB wrote:
>> "crisse de
>> calvaire d'osti" occasionally, and "en crisse" means "en colère".
>> You could also hear someone addressed as "mon 'ti-crisse" during a
>> dressing-down. Back to le petit bonhomme?
>
> une crise (noun) = crisis (crisser (verb)= make the sound of nails
> on blackboard)
> un calvaire (noun): a terrible and insupportable ordeal.
> There is no idiomatic sentence using 'crise' and 'calvaire' together
> that I know of.
> I have no idea what the rest of the expressions you wrote are
> supposed to be and have never heard them, yet I'm a native
> french-speaker. Do you have maybe another spelling?
Yes. "Crisse" is a respelling, probably a softening, of "Christ". In
Canada, it is pronounced as the spelling would indicate, taking into
account the local accent. I recall a good short story by Grania
Davis, "Young Love", told in language appropriate to the intellectual
deprivation of the prole narrator, in which the verb "to crise" (which
I assume was pronounced [kraIs]) was used to mean "to curse".
Profanity in Canadian French can consist of a string of religious
taboo-words having no obligatory relationship with each other, in the
form "A de B de C de D de Etc." Besides "crisse" and "calvaire"
(which means not just an ordeal but the ordeal of Christ's
crucufixion): "osti" is "hostie", the host that is offered at the
eucharist.
Shani
Ok, thanks for the precision, I'm laique so I tend to forget a lot of
words have strong religious content.
gratefully yours,
Cha
Richard Bollard
<pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>Nick Spalding wrote:
>
>> Both of these in the form of "Sweet Jesus" and "Jesus, Mary and
>> Joseph" are commonly used in Ireland with the same non-blasphemous
>> intent.
>
>At present I'm embroiled in a personal crisis, the details of which
>aren't really suitable for an open forum. When I gave the details in
>e-mail to a small handful of people, a response from an Irish friend
>included the words "I'll pray for you". That's something not often
>encountered in Australia, and some would interpret it as a slightly
>offensive forcing of that person's religious views on them. I had to
>remind myself that the religious tradition is still very strong in Ireland.
I have heard that from some people and, while it makes the atheist in
me uncomfortable, it doesn't actually offend. I don't think the
supernatural will intervene in any positive way, but it doesn't hurt
for someone to wish you well in their own way.
Probably less offensive that people wishing you "a prosperous New
Year" which smacks of materialism.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Bob Cunningham
<ChaTou...@gmail.com> said:
> I'm laique so I tend to forget a lot of words have
> strong religious content.
Me too. If I were to say "Go to Hell, God damn you", it
would have no significance beyond being a recognized
insulting burst of clichés. I don't connect it with an
imaginary place called "Hell" or a mythical entity called
"God".
This came up in a thread here sometime in past years. I had
said that to me "damned" didn't mean anything much different
from "darned", but was just a ruder way of saying it. I was
surprised at the reaction from people telling me about the
horror of damnation. I hadn't realized there were people
who took it so seriously.
Roland Hutchinson
Eternal darnation would be a serious matter indeed, now that I have occasion
to contemplate it.
Imaging being confined for all eternity with someone saying "Darn you, darn
you, darn you..." all the time. You'd be wishing--perhaps praying--for the
brimstone in no time. Well, no time at all compared to eternity, for sure.
R H Draney
>
>Eternal darnation would be a serious matter indeed, now that I have occasion
>to contemplate it.
>
>Imaging being confined for all eternity with someone saying "Darn you, darn
>you, darn you..." all the time. You'd be wishing--perhaps praying--for the
>brimstone in no time. Well, no time at all compared to eternity, for sure.
This idea has been anticipated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil,_the_Prince_of_Insufficient_Light
....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Roland Hutchinson
> Roland Hutchinson filted:
>>
>>Eternal darnation would be a serious matter indeed, now that I have
>>occasion to contemplate it.
>>
>>Imaging being confined for all eternity with someone saying "Darn you,
>>darn
>>you, darn you..." all the time. You'd be wishing--perhaps praying--for
>>the
>>brimstone in no time. Well, no time at all compared to eternity, for
>>sure.
>
> This idea has been anticipated:
My best ideas often have been.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil,_the_Prince_of_Insufficient_Light
Do we know whether Phil's punishments are in fact eternal, or just long
enough to be _really_ annoying?
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil,_the_Prince_of_Insufficient_Light
>
>Do we know whether Phil's punishments are in fact eternal, or just long
>enough to be _really_ annoying?
I've seen characters subjected to those punishments later released to suffer in
other ways, so I would guess the latter....r
Roland Hutchinson
> Roland Hutchinson filted:
>>
>>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil,_the_Prince_of_Insufficient_Light
>>
>>Do we know whether Phil's punishments are in fact eternal, or just long
>>enough to be _really_ annoying?
>
> I've seen characters subjected to those punishments later released to
> suffer in other ways, so I would guess the latter....r
Well, that's comforting.
Peter Moylan
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:55:02 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>
>> Nick Spalding wrote:
>>
>>> Both of these in the form of "Sweet Jesus" and "Jesus, Mary and
>>> Joseph" are commonly used in Ireland with the same
>>> non-blasphemous intent.
>> At present I'm embroiled in a personal crisis, the details of which
>> aren't really suitable for an open forum. When I gave the details
>> in e-mail to a small handful of people, a response from an Irish
>> friend included the words "I'll pray for you". That's something not
>> often encountered in Australia, and some would interpret it as a
>> slightly offensive forcing of that person's religious views on
>> them. I had to remind myself that the religious tradition is still
>> very strong in Ireland.
>
> I have heard that from some people and, while it makes the atheist in
> me uncomfortable, it doesn't actually offend. I don't think the
> supernatural will intervene in any positive way, but it doesn't hurt
> for someone to wish you well in their own way.
On reflection, I think that you and Arcadian are right. I've just
remembered a time in hospital when I was visited by a minister from my
wife's church. He knew about my religious views, or lack of same. (For a
while I was the Mayfield Baptist Church's token atheist, because I sang
in their choir.) He asked whether he could say a prayer, and I didn't
refuse. It didn't do anything for me, but then it didn't harm me, and I
could recognise his sincerity.
> Probably less offensive that people wishing you "a prosperous New
> Year" which smacks of materialism.
Ah, the anti-Jesus religious right. Yes, I have more trouble dealing
with them. In fact I have respect for Jesus as a person, assuming that
the stories about him are broadly correct, because he was pushing moral
values that are compatible with mine, and had the guts to oppose the
established political and religious power base. I have nothing but
contempt for those who call themselves Christians but censor out the
parts that talk about the conflict between wealth and morality.
Not to mention the insistence on the literal truth of every word of the
Bible, combined with a refusal to stone their girlfriends when caught in
adultery, or put to the sword the televangelists who are preaching
their competing distortions of Truth.
Shani
> On 01 Jun 2007 18:06:31 GMT, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> said:
>
>
>
> > Op Thu, 31 May 2007 21:44:07 +0100, schreef Prai Jei:
>
> > > Bob Cunningham (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in
>
> > >> In Agatha Christie's _Elephants Can Remember_ (page 114 in my Berkley
> > >> paperback edition, ISBN 0-425-06782-3), Hercule Poirot say "Nom d'un
> > >> petit bonhomme". He then tells his servant, George, that it's "a mere
> > >> ejaculation". The rest of the context doesn't seem to shed any light
> > >> on the meaning of the phrase.
>
> > > Probably it has just about the same meaning as "nom d'un chien" or "nom
> > > d'un pipe". Why should invoking the name of a dog or a pipe constitute a
> > > mild oath?
>
> > It is a jocular euphemism for "nom de Dieu", a *very* common phrase in
> > French that is clearly an alllusion to the commandment not to use the
> > name of God in vain. "God damn it" or any form thereof would be the most
> > likely English translation of "nom de Dieu" because it is used in similar
> > circumstances.
>
> > If even "nom de Dieu" (itself a euphemism) is considered too rude, Dieu
> > is replaced with whatever comes to mind for humourous effect.
>
> I seem to remember seeing somewhere "nom d'un nom d'un nom".
>
> the infant Jesus as a little man.
It's 'nom de nom de nom de nom...' (and you kan keep on saying as
long as you like to express your stress or annoyance). In Belgium,
most atheist people who say 'nom d'un petit bonhomme' actually think
about Manneken Pis (the little peeing man, hence the funny part). I
asked around a bit and it seems to be a common idea. However, to most
catholics it is indeed Jesus, and for them it's funny because Jesus
was a big serious man and not a jolly little chap.
Hope that helps, wouldn't know about what the French meaning, they
don't have manneken pis lol..
G'd day
Cha
Shani
> On 02 Jun 2007 09:08:54 GMT, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> said:
>
>
>
> > Op Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:59:17 -0700, schreef Bob Cunningham:
>
> > > On 01 Jun 2007 23:38:56 GMT, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> said:
>
> > >> Op Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:38:19 -0700, schreef Bob Cunningham:
>
> > >> > I seem to remember seeing somewhere "nom d'un nom d'un nom".
>
> > >> > But I continue to see nothing humorous about referring to the infant
> > >> > Jesus as a little man.
>
>
> > > What might you have to say about the following reference that was
> > > supplied by my friend Purl Gurl (http://tinyurl.com/27evcw):
>
> > > [_nom d'un petit bonhomme_]
> > > "...fait allusion à Jésus enfant."
> > > Dictionnaire historique d'argot By Lorédan Larchey
>
> > > ?
>
> > I would say that Larchey above is only remotely right. That is, if you
> > want to hear an allusion to JC in the expression, of course you can. But
> > you are not required to.
>
> > Let me explain the joke for you. It is a playful way to avoid the taboo
> > surrounding the name of God.
>
> > Imagine yourself being a young Frenchman a few hundred years ago who has,
> > as would have been the norm, a devout Catholic grandmother, who would
> > always give you a clip around the ear for using any disrespectful
> > language. Now, there is some sort of situation and you would naturally
> > start off with a heartfelt "Nom d'". But you would have her attention
> > immediately and she gives you that vicious "don't you dare say it, boy"
> > look. So, quickly, you substitute "un petit bonhomme" for "Dieu", thereby
> > avoiding the whack. And you get to celebrate a little victory over your
> > grandmother, feeling all clever and smug and pleased with yourself,
> > because of course you *did* mean to say "nom de Dieu" but you didn't and
> > now she is frustrated because she can't punish you.
>
> > So, a new euphemism is born and it enters the vernacular. And endless
> > variations see the light.
>
> > For strongest (less euphemistic) effect, the thing you would say the
> > "name of" would always be something contemptible or "dirty". Implied is
> > an insult to the name God, to rile up your grandmother even *more*
> > without giving her an excuse to whack you.
>
> > When your grandmother calls you a petit bonhomme she means that as a term
> > of endearment. You are being a good, obedient, respectful kid. But your
> > age peers will then ridicule you for being your grandmother's bonhomme.
> > Prai Jei mentioned "nom de chien". I think that one is obvious, dogs are
> > dirty, have fleas and such. Another one is "nome d'un pipe". Of course un
> > pipe is also a pipe, but the reference to oral sex (pipe = blowjob, once
> > understood to be a sinful activity) is not lost on anyone.
>
> > I also hear "nom d'une putain" (name of a whore), et cetera.
>
> > But if you want to be polite while still using an expletive you could as
> > well say "sacré nom d'un teddy bear" of "nom d'une automobile" or
> > whatever - and everybody will still understand and they will laugh at the
> > most surreal, clever combinations that you can come up with. Endless
> > source of humour.
>
> I understand your point of view, but I choose to think
> you've wandered off on a tangent and strayed too far from
> the likely truth.
>
> I prefer to believe that the person who first uttered the
> euphemism had in mind "Name of Jesus!" and substituted "un
> petit bonhomme" for "Jesus" to avoid offending whoever might
> be offended by the profane version.
>
> likely to be the best. I think there's a name for that
> principle, but it doesn't come to mind at the moment.
KISS: Keep It Stupid Simple (oups maybe not that one, just kidding ^v^)
Shani
> On 02 Jun 2007 13:33:17 GMT, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> said:
>
>
>
> > Op Sat, 02 Jun 2007 03:14:42 -0700, schreef Bob Cunningham:
>
> > > I understand your point of view, but I choose to think you've wandered
> > > off on a tangent and strayed too far from the likely truth.
>
> > for a better one.
>
> > > I prefer to believe that the person who first uttered the euphemism had
> > > in mind "Name of Jesus!" and substituted "un petit bonhomme" for "Jesus"
> > > to avoid offending whoever might be offended by the profane version.
>
> > > When confronted with diverse possibilities, the simplest is likely to be
> > > the best. I think there's a name for that principle, but it doesn't
> > > come to mind at the moment.
>
>
> > It does not apply the way you think however. "Nom de Jésus" is not really
> > used in French as an expletive. "Nom de Dieu" is used daily and
> > universally, whenever someone hits his thumb with a hammer, or finds
> > himself in a traffic jam for example. Its power as an oath comes from the
> > fact that it is in straight defiance of Exodus 20:7 / Deuteronomy 5:11,
> > the third of the Ten Commandments.
>
> > Notice that even when using this particular oath, they would not *quite*
> > say the name of God (which is YHWH of course). So even "nom de Dieu" is
> > in itself a euphemism - but it is still offensive enough.
>
> > All the other examples of "name of" that I mentioned are used also.
>
> The acceptability of your logic seems to collapse in view of
> a small likelihood that in casting about for nonsensical
> random substitutes for "Dieu" in "nom de Dieu", someone
> would light on "un petit bonhomme" without attaching any
> significance to it.
The significance maybe absurd or nnonsense, but I think it's clear:
god is supposed to be great, big, almighty, definitely not what one
would call 'a little fellow', so calling him that is funny, not
necessarily demeaning, because it brings him closer to humans, I think
it's somewhat a form of endearment of god for christians. As for non-
christians, well, they can give it any meaning they feel like.
Amethyst Deceiver
> On Jun 2, 12:14 pm, Bob Cunningham <exw6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> When confronted with diverse possibilities, the simplest is
>> likely to be the best. I think there's a name for that
>> principle, but it doesn't come to mind at the moment.
>
>
> KISS: Keep It Stupid Simple (oups maybe not that one, just kidding
> ^v^)
Shani, when you're responding to a post, please trim. You quoted about 90
lines, just to add two.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
Bob Cunningham
<ChaTou...@gmail.com> said:
> On Jun 2, 7:30 pm, Bob Cunningham <exw6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[about NMP's assertion that the "petit bonhomme" in the
subject phrase is just one of many possible nonsense
utterances.]
> > The acceptability of your logic seems to collapse in view of
> > a small likelihood that in casting about for nonsensical
> > random substitutes for "Dieu" in "nom de Dieu", someone
> > would light on "un petit bonhomme" without attaching any
> > significance to it.
> The significance maybe absurd or nnonsense, but I think it's clear:
> god is supposed to be great, big, almighty, definitely not what one
> would call 'a little fellow', so calling him that is funny, not
> necessarily demeaning, because it brings him closer to humans, I think
> it's somewhat a form of endearment of god for christians. As for non-
> christians, well, they can give it any meaning they feel like.
That line of argument ignores the fact that there are those
who think "petit bonhomme" refers to a small statuette of
Christ, and others who think it refers to the Christ child
in his mother's arms. So your "I think it's clear" is
misguided.
That "Name of Christ" is not a common Gallic profanity, as
explained by a couple of posters in this thread, has no
bearing on the fact that there are people who have
specifically stated that the "petit bonhomme" is Christ in
one of two senses. (See Purl Gurl's posting at
http://tinyurl.com/yto6yl .) So long as there are people
who so believe, it can't be properly called clear nonsense.
Bob Cunningham
<ChaTou...@gmail.com> said:
> On Jun 1, 8:38 pm, Bob Cunningham <exw6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
> > I seem to remember seeing somewhere "nom d'un nom d'un nom".
[...]
> It's 'nom de nom de nom de nom...'
Not necessarily. Both are found. In particular, P G
Wodehouse has the French chef Anatole saying it in _Right
Ho, Jeeves_. See http://tinyurl.com/ytaylk .
Guy de Maupassant has someone saying it in something called
_Le Trou_ ( http://tinyurl.com/2dbl5u ), and Google finds
other uses of it in French sources.
Google hits on "nom de nom de nom" seem to have it often
followed by "de Dieu" ("nom de nom de nom de Dieu").
"Nom de nom de nom" seems to be much more commonly used than
"nom d'un nom d'un nom", but it's a disservice to readers
for you to imply that the latter is never found.
Bob Cunningham
<ChaTou...@gmail.com> said:
[Egregious overquoting omitted]
> KISS: Keep It Stupid Simple (oups maybe not that one, just kidding ^v^)
One way to keep it simple is to refrain from quoting 100
lines or so to make a one-line remark.
You would be well-advised to read and heed remarks on
responding to postings at
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/intro_a.shtml#Responding
, wherein there are the words, among others,
When responding to other people, please quote
*just enough* of the previous posting to set the
context for readers. You rarely need to quote the
whole thing.
Frank ess
Shani wrote:
[...]
However, to most
> catholics it is indeed Jesus, and for them it's funny because Jesus
> was a big serious man and not a jolly little chap.
> Hope that helps, wouldn't know about what the French meaning, they
> don't have manneken pis lol..
> G'd day
> Cha
Where can I find the survey that justifies your "most"?
Never mind. I know it's a careless and common ploy used in supporting
unlikelies and unprovables. It just bothers me.
My first and only "wash-your-mouth-out-with-soap" experience was at
age eight, when my mother heard me shout "G-O-D dammit!" as I ran
joyfully past the kitchen window. Lifebuoy tasted much less pleasant
than its perfume led me to expect.
Why would an eight-year-old believe:
a. Spelling a curse word would fend off or diminish the consequences,
and
2. A deity reference was more prohibited than a wish for damnation?
--
Frank ess
Shani
> Shani wrote:
> > However, to most
>> catholics it is indeed Jesus,[...]
>
> Where can I find the survey that justifies your "most"?
>
> Never mind. I know it's a careless and common ploy used in supporting
> unlikelies and unprovables. It just bothers me.
I only asked 3 catholic friends, I realise it doesn't qualify as a
survey and it certainly doesn't justify my use of 'most', sorry I
bothered all of you with my stupid comments and untrimmed quotes, I
was just bored and posted without thinking.
Cha
(full of shame and washing my fingers and keyboard with soap)
Bob Cunningham
<ChaTou...@gmail.com> said:
> On 5 juin, 22:06, "Frank ess" <f...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Never mind. I know it's a careless and common ploy used in supporting
> > unlikelies and unprovables. It just bothers me.
Amusing misreading. When I first read the above, I thought
for a couple of milliseconds that Mr Ess had misspelled
"ukuleles". (When I first wrote the last sentence, I
spelled it "ukeleles". The spell checker set me right.)
> I only asked 3 catholic friends, I realise it doesn't qualify as a
> survey and it certainly doesn't justify my use of 'most', sorry I
> bothered all of you with my stupid comments and untrimmed quotes, I
> was just bored and posted without thinking.
>
> Cha
> (full of shame and washing my fingers and keyboard with soap)
>
Spraying the keyboard with Lysol might be less messy.
Isabelle Cecchini
> Hello, about 'now d'un petit bonhomme', I don't think Jesus is the
> little man but rather the little baby who was sacrificed at the spring
> renewal pagan feasts in the old times.
I am not that keen on the petit bonhomme=Jesus theory either, but I must
say I'm even less keen on the pagan festival human sacrifice hypothesis.
> Somebody said the same
> expression existed ('in the name of the wee man') in Ireland (or was
> it Wales?
Bert mentioned Glasgow, which I think is in Scotland.
> sorry I forgto and I'm too lazy to read it again)
Isn't that just a tiny wee bit contemptuous? I mean, not bothering to
know who said what?
> so I think
> it's a remnant of the old religions
I'm more than doubtful about the link between those "old
religions" and the origin of "nom d'un petit bonhomme".
First, about those "old religions": is there really any evidence that
human sacrifice, involving babies, was ever practised as part of a
spring festival, in the lands where "nom d'un petit bonhomme" and "in
the name of the wee man" are now being uttered?
Second, the French oaths beginning with "Nom de..." are quite modern, as
those things go: "Nom de Dieu", according to the /Dictionnaire
historique de la langue française/, appeared at the beginning of the
19th century. The various euphemisms: "nom d'un bleu" (which I found in
the 19th century Larousse), "nom d'un tonnerre", "nom d'un chien", "nom
d'une pipe" appeared afterwards. When Lorédan Larchey noted down "nom
d'un petit bonhomme" in his /Dictionnaire d'argot/, he was in fact
writing about a rather recent usage.
The gap between a prehistoric time when human sacrifices might --or
might not-- have been practised in France and the first recorded
occurences of "nom d'un petit bonhomme" is really too wide to be bridged
convincingly for my taste.
Going back to Larchey's dictionary, I find it a wonderful source of
colourful expressions, but I must point out that it's not always very
reliable on origins.
For instance, Larchey sees "Mon oeil !", expressing incredulity, as a
shortening of "Regarde de quelle nuance est mon oeil" (= Look at the hue
of my eye") without mentioning that here "oeil" is a euphemism for the
much ruder "cul".
The two different interpretations that he gives for "nom d'un petit
bonhomme" -- a reference to a small statue representing Christ and a
direct address to the infant Jesus-- show that he has difficulty in
assigning one sure origin to the phrase.
> more than it is associated with
> Jesus. Anyway that's just my opinion.
Interesting as that is, I can't help feeling it would be even more
interesting if it was backed with some research.
--
Isabelle Cecchini
Peter Moylan
> My first and only "wash-your-mouth-out-with-soap" experience was at age
> eight, when my mother heard me shout "G-O-D dammit!" as I ran joyfully
> past the kitchen window. Lifebuoy tasted much less pleasant than its
> perfume led me to expect.
>
> Why would an eight-year-old believe:
>
> a. Spelling a curse word would fend off or diminish the consequences, and
> 2. A deity reference was more prohibited than a wish for damnation?
>
You might equally well ask why mature adults can believe that their god
is so stupid as to be unable to guess what words like "goldarnit" really
mean.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> You might equally well ask why mature adults can believe that their
> god is so stupid as to be unable to guess what words like
> "goldarnit" really mean.
Who cares what they "really mean"? You can "really mean" anything you
want. It's actually invoking the god's *name* or building a statue of
its likeness that gives you power over it. That's what pisses him
off, according to the text and what he prohibited. (And what
observant Jews still refrain from doing.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Well, if you can't believe what you
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |read in a comic book, what can you
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |believe?!
| Bullwinkle J. Moose
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Al in Dallas
<pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>Frank ess wrote:
>
>> My first and only "wash-your-mouth-out-with-soap" experience was at age
>> eight, when my mother heard me shout "G-O-D dammit!" as I ran joyfully
>> past the kitchen window. Lifebuoy tasted much less pleasant than its
>> perfume led me to expect.
>>
>> Why would an eight-year-old believe:
>>
>> a. Spelling a curse word would fend off or diminish the consequences, and
>> 2. A deity reference was more prohibited than a wish for damnation?
>>
>You might equally well ask why mature adults can believe that their god
>is so stupid as to be unable to guess what words like "goldarnit" really
>mean.
When I moved to rural Texas, I was surprised to hear the teenagers
exclaim "Gah!" I thought it sounded too much like "God" to be a
euphemism, but the rural adults seemed to have no problem with it
whatsoever.
--
Al in St. Lou
Shani
I just thought of another expression we use routinely in French with
'petit bonhomme' (and I really don't see how you can think le bonhomme
is jesus in this case), so here it is: "Faire son petit bonhomme de
chemin" or "Aller son petit bonhomme de chemin" which translates to,
more or less (since it's a literal translation and I don't see how to
express it another way in English (but maybe you have an expression
that means the same that I don't know about)) : "Making (or going) his
(or her) 'little fellow' way". It's like saying the person we talk
about is following his life path simply, one step at a time, at a slow
rythm, with no big events and a quiet resolution to keep on going.
Well that's it, maybe there's more info to be found about it but to be
quite honest, I'm not that motivated.
I hope this is not off topic,
Good evening, afternoon or day whenever you are. (bad use of whenever?
maybe; I like it though)
Cha
Shani
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:42:56 -0000, Shani
[blabla]
> > Cha
> > (full of shame and washing my fingers and keyboard with soap)
>
> Spraying the keyboard with Lysol might be less messy.
lol yes, I will think of replacing that one next time (though I do
hope there won't be), thanks
Cha
Shani
<isabelle.cecch...@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote:
> Shani a écrit :
>
> > Hello, about 'now d'un petit bonhomme', I don't think Jesus is the
> > little man but rather the little baby who was sacrificed at the spring
> > renewal pagan feasts in the old times.
>
> I am not that keen on the petit bonhomme=Jesus theory either, but I must
> say I'm even less keen on the pagan festival human sacrifice hypothesis.
>
> > Somebody said the same
> > expression existed ('in the name of the wee man') in Ireland (or was
> > it Wales?
>
> Bert mentioned Glasgow, which I think is in Scotland.
>
> > sorry I forgto and I'm too lazy to read it again)
>
> Isn't that just a tiny wee bit contemptuous? I mean, not bothering to
> know who said what?
Very, but I only come and check what's been said here before bed at
about2-3 a.m so I read it all in one go and don't have the motivation
to go and check a second time for details such as who wrote which
particular line, I just focus on the main points I do remember to
write my post. Yes it's a bad excuse, sorry, it's all I got.
>
> > so I think
> > it's a remnant of the old religions
>
> I'm more than doubtful about the link between those "old
> religions" and the origin of "nom d'un petit bonhomme".
And you have a right to be, I was merely stating what I thought was a
possibility (maybe a bit too forcefully, I apologise)
>
> First, about those "old religions": is there really any evidence that
> human sacrifice, involving babies, was ever practised as part of a
> spring festival, in the lands where "nom d'un petit bonhomme" and "in
> the name of the wee man" are now being uttered?
The evidence consists mostly of stories and hearsay, and you might
discard if you don't consider that as true evidence; but there are
archeological discoveries which tend to prove the existence of such
rituals (maybe not with babies, as their bones wouldn't have stayed
long enough to fossilise, being cartilagenous and all, but man
sacrifice though, yes), and that is harder to deny (sacrifices for
spring were young prepubere men, they might have been called wee men,
no?)
. See <http://www.digitalmedievalist.com/faqs/sacrific.html> for an
article on the subject.
After reading it, I thought that 'le petit bonhomme' was actually the
straw man figure, and that 'petit' was irony, but only IMHO, so no
proof there :p
As to know if it happened 'in' the lands where is now uttered "nom
d'un petit bonhomme" and "in the name of the wee man", I don't know,
the Cellts were all over west-northern Europe, from the British Isles
to Gaule so, hey, populations move, and language usages get passed on,
hard to say what came from where.
What is indeed still true, in Belgium at least (and after what I take
from my stay there, in England too), is that our culture and folklore
keep a lot of traces of the influence of celt culture, which was an
amazing and interesting one, so why couldn't it have influenced others
in southern France as well?
> The gap between a prehistoric time when human sacrifices might --or
> might not-- have been practised in France and the first recorded
> occurences of "nom d'un petit bonhomme" is really too wide to be bridged
> convincingly for my taste.
Well, for my taste the bridge is long, I guess
>
> > more than it is associated with
> > Jesus. Anyway that's just my opinion.
>
> Interesting as that is, I can't help feeling it would be even more
> interesting if it was backed with some research.
Agreed, sorry again
>
> --
> Isabelle Cecchini
I will try and be more conscientious in the future.
Cha
Shani
Sorry, really I didn't think it was ever used because I never heard
it or read it anywhere (and it sounded really weird and wrong to me)
so there, honest mistake.
Shani
fact that the catholic church did take a lot of pagan rituals and
feasts as their own to better fit in the popular culture, so maybe the
jesus explanation is really a later addition to the first wee man
story (and so was Mowgli lol)
I'll really try and stop now, apologise my dyctalorrhea.
> Cha
Bob Cunningham
It does sound pretty strange, doesn't it?
Peter Moylan
De nana de nom de nom
Nom de nom de nom
De nana de nom de nom
Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon oeuil,
Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon cul.
Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon oeuil,
But the Mexicans dance on their hats.
Shani
Yup, it sure does
Shani
> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon oeuil,
> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon cul.
> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon oeuil,
> But the Mexicans dance on their hats.
> Peter Moylan
'Oeuil' is acctally spelled "oeil" 8)
Shani
> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon oeuil,
> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon cul.
> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon oeuil,
> But the Mexicans dance on their hats.
>
> --
> Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Sorry, seems both spellings can be found also, but oeuil is a bit
strange to me too, lol.
Shani
> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon oeuil,
At least, they can both be found on the web, but my dictionnary
(encyclopedie Larousse) only gives the spelling 'oeil'.
Bob Cunningham
<pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> said:
[...]
> Nom de nom de nom
> De nana de nom de nom
> Nom de nom de nom
> De nana de nom de nom
>
> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon oeuil,
> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon cul.
> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon oeuil,
> But the Mexicans dance on their hats.
If you say so.
Peter Moylan
> On Jun 8, 9:59 am, Peter Moylan <p...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>
>> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon oeuil,
>> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon cul.
>> Mon oeuil, mon oeuil, mon oeuil,
>> But the Mexicans dance on their hats.
>
>
been disgracefully misled by the spelling of the plural. Oh, well, it's
interesting to see that Skitt's law works even across languages.
I've just set my (Thunderbird) spelling checker to French. According to
it, both "oeuil" and "oeil" are spelling errors. (For "oeil", it
suggests "orteil" as a correction.) On the other hand, I was surprised
to see the words "but" and "plural" as correct French. After a few
seconds I realised that "but" was my own oversight; but "plural" was a
completely new word to me.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eggs
Shani
> I've just set my (Thunderbird) spelling checker to French. According to
> it, both "oeuil" and "oeil" are spelling errors. (For "oeil", it
> suggests "orteil" as a correction.) On the other hand, I was surprised
> to see the words "but" and "plural" as correct French. After a few
> seconds I realised that "but" was my own oversight; but "plural" was a
> completely new word to me.
Strange that the spelling checker confuses eye and toe...
In French, 'but' =goal, but 'plural' is unknown to me too (it's
supposed to be 'pluriel')... pluralité does exist though, so maybe
that explains the glitch. Anyway spelling in French is complicated
even for the natives.
Cheers
Cha
paulalo...@gmail.com
snide...@gmail.com
> Why? At one point in his life he was a little man.
> There's no reason to be overly sensitive about a fictional character.
about 1/3 of the way into the thread
From: Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "nom d'un petit bonhomme"
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:38:19 -0700
>> But I continue to see nothing humorous about referring to
>> the infant Jesus as a little man.
/dps