Female Bastard
GrapeApe
I have always considered the term to be male. Why?
Is it gender specific or not?
What would the girl bastard be called?
Raymond S. Wise
news:20030429231551...@mb-m19.aol.com...
"Bastard" means any child born out of wedlock, whether the father is known
or not. It was once used as a term in law, but I presume that today
"illegitimate child" or "child born out of wedlock" would be used more often
when writing new laws.
As a term of abuse, however, "bastard" is almost always used to insult a boy
or man. A similarly strong term of abuse for a girl or woman would be
"bitch," and "son of a bitch" is, in my opinion, an even stronger insult for
a boy or man than "bastard." Its abbreviation, "SOB" or "S.O.B.," is a
euphemistic replacement. I see that a Google search turns up examples of
"daughter of a bitch," but I have never heard it used.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Matti Lamprhey
>
> "Bastard" means any child born out of wedlock, whether the father is
> known or not. It was once used as a term in law, but I presume that
> today "illegitimate child" or "child born out of wedlock" would be
There are some oppedantunities here. The term may historically have
been limited to those:
1. Born out of wedlock
AND
2. Whose father is known
AND
3. Whose father has failed to acknowledge any rights of succession or
inheritance.
If this is the case, it may explain why the term was apparently far more
often employed of males than of females.
Matti
Jacqui
> There are some oppedantunities here. The term may historically
> have been limited to those:
>
> 1. Born out of wedlock
> AND
> 2. Whose father is known
> AND
> 3. Whose father has failed to acknowledge any rights of succession
> or inheritance.
>
> If this is the case, it may explain why the term was apparently
> far more often employed of males than of females.
Although a lot of the uses of it seem to cover 1 and 2 but not 3, since
a large number of bastard sons *were* given land, inheritance, decent
treatment etc, just not the title at stake. Girls got none of that,
although they might get positions in the household, or a reasonably
good marriage.
Jac
Padraig Breathnach
You neglected the other option favoured in many families: a place in a
nunnery.
PB
Jacqui
Oh yes. Both kinds.
(I should have remembered that, I just finished reading Philippa
Gregory's "The Wise Woman", which has a former nun as the main
character.)
Jac
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> As a term of abuse, however, "bastard" is almost always used to insult a boy
> or man. A similarly strong term of abuse for a girl or woman would be
> "bitch," and "son of a bitch" is, in my opinion, an even stronger insult for
> a boy or man than "bastard."
A male counterpart to a "bitch" is a "cur", but I've never heard it used.
Jon and Mary Miller
Well, no, but I've seen it in print. But "You dog!" doesn't seem to be
much of an insult any more, so it's not surprising that "You cur!" has
disappeared.
And literally, cur is not the male counterpart ob bitch. m-w calls a
cur a mongrel or inferior dog (which agrees with my usage) while a bitch
is just any female dog. Not that the bitch cares about pedigree, but
(in real life) a bitch can be pure. Of course, at the insult level,
what matters is that the bitch doesn't care about pedigree, and without
owner interference, a litter can easily have more than one father.
Dog groups routinely print in premium lists and the like that "dog"
refers to both sexes (except when it doesn't, like in conformation).
"But he is a pleasant, good humoured fellow, and has got the nicest
little black bitch of a pointer I ever saw. Was she out with him today?"
Jon Miller
R F
Someone used it to describe Jim, IIRC.
Charles Riggs
A bastard. This usage goes all the way back, at least, to Elizabeth R,
who was called one by her detractors. Assholes in what remained of the
Catholic church in England, needless to say.
--
Charles Riggs
John Varela
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Although a lot of the uses of it seem to cover 1 and 2 but not 3, since
> a large number of bastard sons *were* given land, inheritance, decent
> treatment etc, just not the title at stake.
For example, Don Juan of Austria, bastard brother of Philip II of
Spain, hero of Lepanto, and Governor-General of The Netherlands.
--
John Varela
John Varela
<jonandma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "But he is a pleasant, good humoured fellow, and has got the nicest
> little black bitch of a pointer I ever saw. Was she out with him today?"
Outside her kennel the mastiff old
Lay fast asleep, in moonshine cold.
The mastiff old did not awake,
Yet she an angry moan did make.
And what can ail the mastiff bitch?
Never till now she uttered yell
Beneath the eye of Christabel.
Perhaps it is the owlet's scritch:
For what can aid the mastiff bitch?
--
John Varela
Joe Fineman
> As a term of abuse, however, "bastard" is almost always used to
> insult a boy or man. A similarly strong term of abuse for a girl or
> woman would be "bitch," and "son of a bitch" is, in my opinion, an
> even stronger insult for a boy or man than "bastard." Its
> abbreviation, "SOB" or "S.O.B.," is a euphemistic replacement. I see
> that a Google search turns up examples of "daughter of a bitch," but
> I have never heard it used.
I imagine that "bastard" as a term of abuse is confined to males, and
"son of a bitch" is not felt to need a female form, because they owe
their popularity to their origin as fighting words. To start a fight
with a man, you insulted his mother, by insinuating that she was a
whore or a hound, respectively. Social convention did not require
that sort of ritual for women.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: The higher the monkey climbs, the more he shows his rear. :||
GrapeApe
A child, male or female, whose mother is missing?
With dad still around to raise him or her, regardless of why mom has gone
missing.
No word for that motherlessness is there?
Robert Lieblich
Raymond S. Wise
Traditionally, the word "orphan" could apply. From Noah Webster's 1828
dictionary[1]:
[quote]
OR'PHAN, n. [Gr.]
A child who is bereaved of father or mother or of both.
OR'PHAN, a. Bereaved of parents.
[end quote]
From the 1913 *Webster's Revised and Unabridged Dictionary* [2]:
[quote]
Or"phan (?), n. [L. orphanus, Gr. , akin to L. orbus. Cf. Orb a blank
window.] A child bereaved of both father and mother; sometimes, also, a
child who has but one parent living.
Orphan (Page: 1013)
Or"phan, a. Bereaved of parents, or (sometimes) of one parent.
[end quote]
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate[3] continues to give this sense in its
definition of the word "orphan," as does the dictionary at
www.infoplease.com [4].
The *American Heritage Dictionary,* 4th ed.[5], does not give such a
definition for "orphan," nor does the *Encarta World English Dictionary*[6].
The term which I would expect to be used today, if it were felt necessary to
have a specific term, is "motherless child."
References:
[1]
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=or
phan
[2] http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=orphan
[3] www.m-w.com
[4] http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0569430.html
[5] http://www.bartleby.com/61/62/O0126200.html
[6]
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?sea
rch=orphan
Robert Bannister
I assume the 'maleness' of 'bastard' had to do with old inheritance laws
regarding property, particularly with respect to the landed gentry. A
daughter couldn't inherit, so her birth was of no consequence - whether
born in wedlock or without.
--
Rob Bannister
Arcadian Rises
writes:
>> Is it gender specific or not?
>I assume the 'maleness' of 'bastard' had to do with old inheritance laws
>regarding property, particularly with respect to the landed gentry. A
>daughter couldn't inherit, so her birth was of no consequence - whether
>born in wedlock or without.
>
>
It sounds very plausible, but only for the English language.
In the Romance languages that I'm familiar with, "bastard" is an adjective that
flexes for each gendre: masculin, feminine and yes, neuter when applied to
plants (a.k.a. hybrides).
My question is whether "bastard", used as an adjective in English, can also
qualify a female: e.g. "her bastard daughter".
Donna Richoux
>
> I assume the 'maleness' of 'bastard' had to do with old inheritance laws
> regarding property, particularly with respect to the landed gentry. A
> daughter couldn't inherit, so her birth was of no consequence - whether
> born in wedlock or without.
One place I vaguely recall it was concerning young Elizabeth the First
-- during the times when the validity of the marriage of her mother Anne
Boleyn to her father Henry VIII was in question, she was considered a
bastard, and ineligible for the throne.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Don Aitken
wrote:
She was formally adjudged a bastard in 1536, and that status was
confirmed by Act of Parliament, which excluded her from the
succession. Those proceedings were never reversed, but a later Act of
Succession (1544) put her back in line anyway.
In the days when "bastard" had primarily the meaning of illegitimacy,
I don't think it would ever have occurred to anybody that males and
females were not equally eligible for the status.
--
Don Aitken
Raymond S. Wise
news:20030501142509...@mb-m11.aol.com...
Yes it can.
Arcadian Rises
>> My question is whether "bastard", used as an adjective in English, can
>also
>> qualify a female: e.g. "her bastard daughter".
>
>
>Yes it can.
Back to the original question of the thread: if a female can be bastard, why
can't a bastard be female?
Raymond S. Wise
To quote myself from an earlier post ( http://tinyurl.com/avfw ): "'Bastard'
means any child born out of wedlock, whether the father is known or not."
If you want to know why "bastard" is not used as a *term of abuse* for
females, that's a different question, and one I can't really answer.
Matti Lamprhey
> "'Bastard' means any child born out of wedlock, whether the father
> is known or not."
And I still think this is an oversimplification, dictionary definitions
notwithstanding.
The proportion of children in Britain born to unwed parents has always
been significant, and is still increasing. Are these all bastards?
There's more to it than "born out of wedlock".
Matti
Raymond S. Wise
news:b9078l$e2ohs$1...@ID-103223.news.dfncis.de...
Yes, they are all bastards. We just don't generally use that word anymore.
There is only one additional point. An illegitimate child, a bastard, can be
legitimated (in some countries, anyway). Adolf Hitler's father Alois, for
example, was born illegitimate and later legitimated. (His original surname,
Schicklgruber, is the source of the use of that term to refer mockingly to
the German dictator himself.)
John Dean
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
> news:b9078l$e2ohs$1...@ID-103223.news.dfncis.de...
>> "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote...
>>>
>>> To quote myself from an earlier post ( http://tinyurl.com/avfw ):
>>> "'Bastard' means any child born out of wedlock, whether the father
>>> is known or not."
>>
>> And I still think this is an oversimplification, dictionary
>> definitions notwithstanding.
>>
>> The proportion of children in Britain born to unwed parents has
>> always been significant, and is still increasing. Are these all
>> bastards? There's more to it than "born out of wedlock".
>
>
> Yes, they are all bastards. We just don't generally use that word
> anymore.
The more common it became to be born 'out of wedlock' the less it mattered.
Meantime 'bastard' had increasingly been used as a swear-word so it was
appropriate not to be unintentionally and unnecessarily rude to the
illegitimate.
It was originally a simple descriptive term - hark back to Joan of Arc's pal
Dunois, the Bastard of Orleans. As such, it lived on for a while on the Cape
where Bastard or Bastaard was a person of mixed race.
And, of course, the term was in common use for many artefacts - swords,
cannon, ships, wine etc.
And in Australia, it's still an all-purpose term :-
< chance to quote my favourite lines from 'Bodyline' >
Douglas 'Priscilla' Jardine: I demand an apology, one of your team mates
called me a bastard.
Australian Player: Which one of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?
>
> There is only one additional point. An illegitimate child, a bastard,
> can be legitimated (in some countries, anyway). Adolf Hitler's father
> Alois, for example, was born illegitimate and later legitimated. (His
> original surname, Schicklgruber, is the source of the use of that
> term to refer mockingly to the German dictator himself.)
It has been the case for some time in England that the subsequent marriage
of the parents renders a child legitimate. And adoption has always made the
point moot.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Don Aitken
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>> There is only one additional point. An illegitimate child, a bastard,
>> can be legitimated (in some countries, anyway). Adolf Hitler's father
>> Alois, for example, was born illegitimate and later legitimated. (His
>> original surname, Schicklgruber, is the source of the use of that
>> term to refer mockingly to the German dictator himself.)
>
>It has been the case for some time in England that the subsequent marriage
>of the parents renders a child legitimate. And adoption has always made the
>point moot.
Only since 1926. Before that, England was the only country which stood
out against the rule of canon law which allowed legitimation in this
way. It was possible only if both parents, at the time of the birth
(or of the conception) were free to marry, not married to someone
else. English law also imported this restriction in 1926, but it was
later (1960s?) abolished.
The complications which arose from the conflict between the two codes
of law were considerable; the transmission of real property was
governed by the common law, but wills, which could deal only with
personalty, were a matter for the ecclesiastical courts, which applied
the canon law rule.
--
Don Aitken
david56
Wasn't the concept of illegitimacy removed from English statute in the
last few years?
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Robert Bannister
OBaue: 'legitimated'? I would have written 'legitimised' (or
'legitimized' if you insist).
--
Rob Bannister
Raymond S. Wise
news:b9131r$1bq$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
[...]
*The Century Dictionary* ( www.century-dictionary.com ) has the following
note in its etymology for the word "bastard":
[quote]
[...] The first known application of
the word was to William the Conqueror, who
was called William the Bastard before the con-
quest, and, indeed, called himself so ("Ego
Wilhelmus cognomine bastardus").
[end quote]
Arcadian Rises
<matti-...@totally-official.com> writes:
>The proportion of children in Britain born to unwed parents has always
>been significant, and is still increasing. Are these all bastards?
>There's more to it than "born out of wedlock".
>
Right, they could be born out of an eprubete in a family of lawfully wedded
parents, or same sex parents, or a single parent.
Arcadian Rises
<illinoi...@mninter.net> writes:
>
>To quote myself from an earlier post ( http://tinyurl.com/avfw ): "'Bastard'
>means any child born out of wedlock, whether the father is known or not."
>
>If you want to know why "bastard" is not used as a *term of abuse* for
>females, that's a different question, and one I can't really answer.
>
>
I'm sure the fact that ceturies ago male heirs were more privileged than female
heirs is not a satisfactory explanation for "bastard" not being a term of abuse
for women nowadays.
Arcadian Rises
writes:
>OBaue: 'legitimated'? I would have written 'legitimised' (or
>'legitimized' if you insist).
>
"Legitimated" is better because it comes from the verb "to legitimate".
Besides, it eliminates the "s" vs "z" controversy.
Robert Bannister
First I've heard there was a verb 'legitimate'. To may amazement, m-w
online give 1531 as its date and only 1800 and something for
'legitimize', which is/was the only verb I was aware of. We live and learn.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Why not? Do you accept the historical reasoning for it being a term of
abuse for men? - The bastard would not normally inherit or, if given
property, would bear a bar sinister on his coat-of-arms - note the
change in meaning of sinister from 'left' to its current meaning. Since
it is no longer disgraceful to be illegitimate, why should it be a
modern term of abuse for women?
Mind you, abuse is a strange thing. Many would not think twice about
calling a man a cunt, but few would call a woman a prick.
--
Rob Bannister
Arcadian Rises
>First I've heard there was a verb 'legitimate'. To may amazement, m-w
>online give 1531 as its date and only 1800 and something for
>'legitimize', which is/was the only verb I was aware of. We live and learn.
Don't worry, the verb "legitimate" is (AFAIK) mostly used in legalese. As you
know, jurists always favor a more conservative language. When there are two
similar words, they pick out the oldest.
Arcadian Rises
>Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure the fact that ceturies ago male heirs were more privileged than
>female
>> heirs is not a satisfactory explanation for "bastard" not being a term of
>abuse
>> for women nowadays.
>
>Why not? Do you accept the historical reasoning for it being a term of
>abuse for men? - The bastard would not normally inherit or, if given
>property, would bear a bar sinister on his coat-of-arms - note the
>change in meaning of sinister from 'left' to its current meaning. Since
>it is no longer disgraceful to be illegitimate, why should it be a
>modern term of abuse for women?
Because the one called "bastard" is not the woman who gave birth to the child
out of wedlock, but the very offspring of the sinful liaison.
>Mind you, abuse is a strange thing. Many would not think twice about
>calling a man a cunt, but few would call a woman a prick.
>
So there are no rules for abusive language.
That's the best explanation so far (IMO) why women are not called "bastards"
nowadays. It's much more plausible than the ;historical; explanation.
Raymond S. Wise
"[T]here are no rules for abusive language."? That has no plausibility
whatsover. The historical explanation which has been offered for why
"bastard" is used for boys and men at least has *some* plausibility. That's
better than none.
Matti Lamprhey
>
> Don't worry, the verb "legitimate" is (AFAIK) mostly used in legalese.
As you
> know, jurists always favor a more conservative language. When there
are two
> similar words, they pick out the oldest.
Oi!
Matti
Skitt
> "Arcadian Rises" wrote...
>> Don't worry, the verb "legitimate" is (AFAIK) mostly used in
>> legalese. As you know, jurists always favor a more conservative
>> language. When there are two similar words, they pick out the oldest.
>
> Oi!
Hmm, isn't the older of two also the oldest one? And you meant to say "Oy",
I think, as that is the custom here.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> > "Arcadian Rises" wrote...
>
> >> Don't worry, the verb "legitimate" is (AFAIK) mostly used in
> >> legalese. As you know, jurists always favor a more conservative
> >> language. When there are two similar words, they pick out the
> >> oldest.
> >
> > Oi!
>
> Hmm, isn't the older of two also the oldest one?
Everywhere but here, perhaps.
> And you meant to say "Oy", I think, as that is the custom here.
No, I meant the exclamatory Oi!, not the eye-rolling self-expressive
Oy...
Matti
Jerry Friedman
According to <http://www.castingsnet.com/dictionaries/>, the English
for "eprubete" is "test tube".
--
Jerry Friedman
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote...
>> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>>> "Arcadian Rises" wrote...
>>>> Don't worry, the verb "legitimate" is (AFAIK) mostly used in
>>>> legalese. As you know, jurists always favor a more conservative
>>>> language. When there are two similar words, they pick out the
>>>> oldest.
>>>
>>> Oi!
>>
>> Hmm, isn't the older of two also the oldest one?
>
> Everywhere but here, perhaps.
You may have even wanted "elder", huh?
>> And you meant to say "Oy", I think, as that is the custom here.
>
> No, I meant the exclamatory Oi!, not the eye-rolling self-expressive
> Oy...
That's the same one, isn't it? Oh well, there was an argument on this
before, and we must have wound up on the two different sides. That argument
was never settled, as I recall.
Anyway, here's something from http://blueray.com/dictionary/vowel/ou.html:
oi. interj. used to attract attention. <Oi, haven't I seen you somewhere
before? --The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus†.>
oy. interj. an expression of annoyance, dismay, grief, or pain.
I think you should have used the second entry, because if people are reading
your post, you already have their attention. You were expressing
disapproval or dismay, weren't you?
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> > "Skitt" wrote...
>
> >
> > No, I meant the exclamatory Oi!, not the eye-rolling self-expressive
> > Oy...
>
> That's the same one, isn't it? Oh well, there was an argument on this
> before, and we must have wound up on the two different sides. That
> argument was never settled, as I recall.
It won't be settled if you persist in regarding them as "the same one",
will it?
> Anyway, here's something from
http://blueray.com/dictionary/vowel/ou.html:
>
> oi. interj. used to attract attention. <Oi, haven't I seen you
> somewhere before? --The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus†.>
>
> oy. interj. an expression of annoyance, dismay, grief, or pain.
>
>
> I think you should have used the second entry, because if people are
> reading your post, you already have their attention. You were
> expressing disapproval or dismay, weren't you?
Disapproval, certainly -- but that wasn't in the list you copied from
the dictionary, was it? When I'm calling attention to an error I think
the "oi...used to attract attention" is appropriate, don't you? Anyway,
I don't think I'm sufficiently Jewish for an Oy.
Matti
Skitt
> "Skitt" <ski...@attbi.com> wrote...
>> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>>> "Skitt" wrote...
>>>> And you meant to say "Oy", I think, as that is the custom here.
>>>
>>> No, I meant the exclamatory Oi!, not the eye-rolling self-expressive
>>> Oy...
>>
>> That's the same one, isn't it? Oh well, there was an argument on
>> this before, and we must have wound up on the two different sides.
>> That argument was never settled, as I recall.
>
> It won't be settled if you persist in regarding them as "the same
> one", will it?
OK, they are different. I am only familiar with the "oy", and I've known
that exclamation ever since my early childhood, but that's neither here nor
there. Oh, and no, I'm not Jewish.
>> Anyway, here's something from
>> http://blueray.com/dictionary/vowel/ou.html:
>>
>> oi. interj. used to attract attention. <Oi, haven't I seen you
>> somewhere before? --The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus†.>
>>
>> oy. interj. an expression of annoyance, dismay, grief, or pain.
>>
>>
>> I think you should have used the second entry, because if people are
>> reading your post, you already have their attention. You were
>> expressing disapproval or dismay, weren't you?
>
> Disapproval, certainly -- but that wasn't in the list you copied from
> the dictionary, was it? When I'm calling attention to an error I
> think the "oi...used to attract attention" is appropriate, don't you?
Not really, for the reason I mentioned above.
> Anyway, I don't think I'm sufficiently Jewish for an Oy.
Yeah, I thought of that thing about having to be Jewish in order to use it,
but decided that it would be a foolish requirement. You were annoyed by the
English usage you saw, and therefore, even though you are not Jewish,
complying with the traditions of AUE, you should have used "Oy!"
I has spoke!
Matti Lamprhey
> [...] You were annoyed by the
> English usage you saw, and therefore, even though you are not Jewish,
> complying with the traditions of AUE, you should have used "Oy!"
I'm not bloody well complying with a practice that's been utterly
bolloxed from the get-go, and nor should you. Tradition my arse.
>
> I has spoke!
Have spoke will travel?
Matti