WARNING: Profanity. Heirarchy of Profanity
Ashley Moore
1. Cunt
2. Fuck
In that order.
I am curious as to whether the most vulgar words in other languages
share the same literal meaning.
Does anybody have any examples from other languages?
Ashley Moore
Jacques Guy
In French "cunt" is "con" but it only means "imbecile" now.
And "fuck" is "foutre" but it only means "to do" now, v.g.
"Qu'est-ce que tu fous?" = "What are you doing?"
To mean "cunt" you need to resort to other words, such
as "cramouille" (vulgar), "foufoune" (cute*) and many
more. To mean "fuck" you normally say "baiser" (which
also means "to kiss"). Except in fossilized expressions
such as "va te faire foutre" (go get fucked--a euphemism
is "va te faire voir chez les grecs").
You can use "foutre" and "con" in their original
meanings, but then it will give your speech -- or
your writing -- an archaic, educated flavour. Still
vulgar, yes, but highly educated vulgar.
* I wonder if "foufoune" might not be derived from
Occitan "font" (fountain) pronounced /fun/ or /fu/.
The meaning is attested by Latin "fonticula".
And I've heard the diminutive "foufounette" too.
Bart Mathias
> In English the two most vulgar words are:
> 1. Cunt
> 2. Fuck
> In that order.
Fascinating! Could you tell us about the research that revealed that to
you?
Does it depend on some very technical definition of "vulgar"?
We probably need to know these things before we can answer your question.
> I am curious as to whether the most vulgar words in other languages
> share the same literal meaning. [...]
Bart Mathias
Peter T. Daniels
If you weren't a woman, you could be referred to the self-proclaimed
world's leading expert on the topic, who regularly scans this newsgroup.
But he's incapable of holding a civil conversation with a woman, whom he
automatically regards as nothing more than a potential receptacle for
his tallywhacker.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Ashley Moore
> Ashley Moore wrote:
> > In English the two most vulgar words are:
> > 1. Cunt
> > 2. Fuck
> > In that order.
>
> Fascinating! Could you tell us about the research that revealed that to
> you?
>
> Does it depend on some very technical definition of "vulgar"?
>
> We probably need to know these things before we can answer your question.
I guess I should have added some disclaimer such as 'arguably' or 'in
my opinion'.
My 'research' was my own native understanding of the language,
confirmed by asking a few friends.
This is a serious question, in a field I know very little about. If
there is an objective metric for vulgarity, or profanity of whatever
you want to call it I be happy to hear about it, otherwise anecdotal
evidence is fine.
I don't think there'd be much argument (except on Usenet or course,
where there's always much argument) that 1. is the worst word in the
modern English. I realise that other languages may not have such a
hierarchy, which may make my question harder to answer.
Is this a field of linguistic study? And does anyone have any pointers
to websites or books where I might find studies on the topic.
Thanks
Ashley Moore
Pieter Z.
news:7abc122e.04101...@posting.google.com
I'm no less surprised by this query than some other respondents, but
here go:
It's been brought up before here that in Dutch for instance our most
vulgar cursings usually have to do with wishing diseases upon each
other, not so much with sexual connotations. Although one cannot rule
out the latter. TBC and cancer are especially popular amongst the
former, but the possibilities are practically endless. As in
teringlijder (more commonly teringlijer) which the Van Dale neatly
describes as 1) (a) consumptive (patient) 2) (rotten / fucking / lousy)
bastard; sod. I'm not so sure about consumptive there but you get the
point, it's supposed to refer to tuberculosis.
"Neuken" (to fuck) isn't usually used by means of cursing here, although
it's been reintroduced from the English by rappers and the likes:
moederneuker = motherfucker. (In fact it seems neuken has only been
considered vulgar in more recent and perhaps more calvinistic times, it
used to be quite common in the sense of "to bother; to nag" I think.)
"Kut" (cunt) might be frowned upon but in fact it's quite common now in
everyday usage and has about the same standing and meaning as the
English shit, as you might exclaim when hitting your thumb with a hammer
or experiencing other such mundane nuisances.
All of these depend on where you're at and under what circumstances of
course.
But in short I doubt if any empirical evidence will be brought forward
to help you, and no, I don't believe vulgar slang in many languages will
share the same characteristics.
Cheers,
Pieter
Joe Fineman
> Ashley Moore wrote:
> > In English the two most vulgar words are:
> > 1. Cunt
> > 2. Fuck
> > In that order.
>
> Fascinating! Could you tell us about the research that revealed
> that to you?
Mr Moore's statement agrees with my experience. I have often noted
that people who routinely use the other 4-letter words stammer a bit
when about to say "cunt".
In the _1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue_, all the other naughty
words are either spelled out in full or slightly disguised with
hyphens, but that one is given four asterisks: for example,
Biter. A wench whose **** is ready to bite her a-se; a
lascivious, rampant wench.
In the actual entry it is given a little more fully:
C**t. The _konnos_ of the Greek, and the _cunnus_ of the Latin
dictionaries; a nasty name for a nasty thing: _un con Miege_.
It seems clear that for quite a while "cunt" has been the dirtiest
word in the language. As others have pointed out, that is a
peculiarity of English; it is not true of the corresponding words in
some other languages, such as "con" & "pizda".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Each came prepared to forgive; neither came prepared to be :||
||: forgiven. :||
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Bart Mathias wrote:
> > Ashley Moore wrote:
> > > In English the two most vulgar words are:
> > > 1. Cunt
> > > 2. Fuck
> > > In that order.
Not necessarily. Are you talking about British, American, South
African, Australian (etc.) English? _Cunt_ is much more taboo in
England than in the USA, for example.
In addition, in an article published in _Maledicta_ (1977), a professor
reported that the two words with the highest tabooness rating -- on a
scale from 1 to 9 -- are _motherfucker_ (8.56) and _cocksucker_ (8.04).
_Fuck_ is 7.98 and _cunt_ 7.04. These results are from research carried
out in Ohio in 1976-77 and do not represent the same values as in 2004.
> > Fascinating! Could you tell us about the research that revealed
> > that to you?
> >
> > Does it depend on some very technical definition of "vulgar"?
Indeed.
> > We probably need to know these things before we can answer
> > your question.
> I guess I should have added some disclaimer such as 'arguably'
> or 'in my opinion'.
Not "arguably," please, which I consider a vulgar weasel-word that went
out of style decades ago.
> My 'research' was my own native understanding of the language,
> confirmed by asking a few friends.
My dear "potential receptacle" (Hi, Petey!), we still don't know *where*
you and your friends are from. Location, location, location.
> This is a serious question, in a field I know very little about.
You could enlighten yourself by moseying over to a university library
and read the 3,200-plus pages on this topic published in _Maledicta_. A
partial listing of the libraries subscribing to that book-sized journal
is at the bottom of the following page:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/reviewers.html
> If there is an objective metric for vulgarity, or profanity of
> whatever you want to call it I be happy to hear about it,
> otherwise anecdotal evidence is fine.
See the two articles in _Maledicta_ by Jay and Wilson (Ohio and Texas)
who scientifically measured the tabooness of some 50 "offensive" terms.
Their articles are listed here:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/highlights.html
> I don't think there'd be much argument (except on Usenet or
> course, where there's always much argument) that 1. is the worst
> word in the modern English.
I disagree. _Vide supra_.
> I realise that other languages may not have such a
> hierarchy,
They most likely do, but not enough "professional" linguists have the
guts to research this fascinating topic. There's work to be done in at
least 5,000 languages (and dissertations galore).
> which may make my question harder to answer.
> Is this a field of linguistic study?
Of course. I founded the new academic discipline called "Maledictology"
(in German, "Schimpfwortforschung").
> And does anyone have any pointers to websites
> or books where I might find studies on the topic.
Google "maledicta" or start here and check the "Links" page:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/
> Thanks
> Ashley Moore
My pleasure, dear Ashley, but don't expect much more from me here. You
can thank Peter ("The Snippy Little Bitch") Daniels, a gutless
"professional" linguist & ASSyriologist.
BTW, are you a Girl-Ashley or a Boy-Ashley?
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
M A L E D I C T A
P.O. Box 14123
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Ashley Moore wrote:
> > In English the two most vulgar words are:
> > 1. Cunt
> > 2. Fuck
> > In that order.
> > I am curious as to whether the most vulgar words in other
> > languages share the same literal meaning.
> >
> > Does anybody have any examples from other languages?
> If you weren't a woman,
How do you know, Petey? "Ashley" happens to be a forename of women
*and* men. The following author, for example, is -- unlike you -- a
*real* man:
MONTAGU, Ashley. _The Anatomy of Swearing_. New York: Macmillan, 1967.
Reprinted in 2001 by the University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
370 pages. Paperback, $24.95.
See, Petey, I know my field of expertise.
> you could be referred to the self-proclaimed
> world's leading expert on the topic,
"Self-proclaimed," my ass. Do you know anyone else in the world who
knows as much as I do about maledicta? If so, I'll gladly abdicate my
title (given to me by journalists and scholars, not by myself) to him or
her. Good luck finding someone who knows even 10% of what I've already
forgotten since beginning my maledicta research in 1965.
> who regularly scans this newsgroup.
Irregularly. Your continual sniping & bitching about everything and
everyone -- like a woman with permanent PMS and a crusty tampon up her
twat -- makes this NG quite unpleasant. What a pity you can't be more
like your exact antithesis, the brilliant and always gentle & charming
Miguel Carrasquer.
> But he's incapable of holding a civil conversation with a woman,
Again, how do you know? Petey, you snippy little bitch, you're such a
malicious cocksucker (lit. & fig.). Do you drag all that nasty and
envious shit about me out of your asshole when it's not occupied by your
head or a faggoty cock, you _kontneuker_?
> whom he automatically regards
Once more, how the fuck do you know, you nasty little bastard?
> as nothing more than a potential receptacle for his tallywhacker.
First, *you* may have a limp & childish "tallywhacker"; I -- a *real*
man -- have a "prick."
Second, in addition to your severe personality disorder and erectile
problems, your memory is shot. Everyone who's paid attention knows that
I prefer *eating pussy* and am renowned on two continents as the best
cunnilinguist west of Brest.
What *am* I gonna do with you, Petey? I've tried at least three times
here to make peace with you, but you're such a fucked-up nasty
son-of-a-bitch who just *has* to slime others.
Remember when I went out of my way to teach you how to use the Adobe
photo program? Typically SLB Petey, you just *had* to bitch that my
thorough explanations were more exhaustive than what you needed, you
_stronzo ingrato_.
Till we meet again: Se la strada fosse pavimentata con i cazzi, tua
madre camminerebbe col culo!
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Editor & Publisher
M A L E D I C T A
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> It's been brought up before here that in Dutch for instance our most
> vulgar cursings usually have to do with wishing diseases upon each
> other, not so much with sexual connotations. Although one cannot rule
> out the latter. TBC and cancer are especially popular amongst the
> former, but the possibilities are practically endless. As in
> teringlijder (more commonly teringlijer) which the Van Dale neatly
> describes as 1) (a) consumptive (patient) 2) (rotten / fucking / lousy)
> bastard; sod. I'm not so sure about consumptive there but you get the
> point, it's supposed to refer to tuberculosis.
[...]
For much more information about and many examples of Dutch and Flemish
illness and disease curses, see:
_Krijg de vinkentering! 1001 Nederlandse en Vlaamse verwensingen_ by my
friends Ewoud Sanders and Rob Tempelaars. Here's a long excerpt in Dutch:
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/vinkentering.html
Groetjes,
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
M A L E D I C T A
P.O. Box 14123
Miguel Carrasquer
<am...@sonic.net> wrote:
>What a pity you can't be more
>like your exact antithesis, the brilliant and always gentle & charming
>Miguel Carrasquer.
Not always. For instance, I recall calling someone a "cap
de cony[1]", on this forum, or perhaps on sci.archaeology.
[1] A remarkable Catalan-Dutch isogloss ("kuttekop": in the
New Reformed Spelling, which I don't use, probably
"kuttenkop").
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
m...@wxs.nl
Miguel Carrasquer
<am...@sonic.net> wrote:
>For much more information about and many examples of Dutch and Flemish
>illness and disease curses, see:
>
>_Krijg de vinkentering! 1001 Nederlandse en Vlaamse verwensingen_ by my
>friends Ewoud Sanders and Rob Tempelaars. Here's a long excerpt in Dutch:
>
> http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/vinkentering.html
>
>Groetjes,
That excerpt doesn't mention my favourite: "Krijg de
bloedkanker achterin je hart!" (Amsterdam?).
Pieter Z.
news:dobfn0pu23vcfm7cb...@4ax.com
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:15:57 GMT, "Reinhold (Rey) Aman"
> <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> For much more information about and many examples of Dutch and
>> Flemish illness and disease curses, see:
>>
>> _Krijg de vinkentering! 1001 Nederlandse en Vlaamse verwensingen_ by
>> my friends Ewoud Sanders and Rob Tempelaars. Here's a long excerpt
>> in Dutch:
>>
>> http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/vinkentering.html
Nice one(s). We could go on with http://www.dictionaryofslang.co.uk/ and
http://www.insultmonger.com/swearing/ of course. The latter I find
somewhat spurious sometimes plus I now see these days it has a pesky
activeX thing that it wants to force on you so be warned. Ah and let's
not forget http://www.notam02.no/~hcholm/altlang/ .
> That excerpt doesn't mention my favourite: "Krijg de
> bloedkanker achterin je hart!" (Amsterdam?).
Sounds like Amsterdammerish to me alright. It'd be "achter in"
technically but I doubt if the perpetrator could give a $%^.
Cheers,
Pieter
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
>>For much more information about and many examples of Dutch
>>and Flemish illness and disease curses, see:
>>
>>_Krijg de vinkentering! 1001 Nederlandse en Vlaamse verwensingen_
>>by my friends Ewoud Sanders and Rob Tempelaars. Here's a long
>>excerpt in Dutch:
>>
>> http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/vinkentering.html
>>
>>Groetjes,
> That excerpt doesn't mention my favourite: "Krijg de
> bloedkanker achterin je hart!" (Amsterdam?).
It's in the book, p. 43, but uses "achter," not "achterin."
No place is indicated. Variants:
"Krijg de bloedkanker achter je hart, (dan) kan de dokter lang zoeken!"
"..., (dan) kunnen ze lang zoeken voor ze het vinden!"
"Krijg de bloedkanker in je harses (hersens)!"
"Krijg de bloedkanker in je ogen!"
One of my favorites: "Krijg de rattenkuttenkanker!"
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
AUEer Emeritus & Eremitus
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
«Pensad siempre en AUE y dedicad, con amor y devoción,
lo mejor de vuestros esfuerzos a los AUEers». -Los Reyes
Bart Mathias
> [...]
> In the _1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue_, [...]
>
> C**t. The _konnos_ of the Greek, and the _cunnus_ of the Latin
> dictionaries; a nasty name for a nasty thing: _un con Miege_.
"Nasty thing"? What a bizarre notion! I thought the Dark Ages were
over by 1811.
> [...]
Bart Mathias
Ashley Moore
Thanks for your input Jacques. But I wasn't after words that mean
'cunt' or 'fuck'. There are other words that mean these things in
English such as pussy, fanny, screw, shag, that don't have the same
degree of vulgarity.
What I'm wondering is, is there a collection of words that are
considered the most vulgar. If you need a metric, may something like
words that are most likely to be beeped out on free-to-air radio or
television.
And if these words exist in French, what are their literal meanings?
Thanks again,
Ashley Moore
Jacques Guy
> What I'm wondering is, is there a collection of words that are
> considered the most vulgar. If you need a metric, may something like
> words that are most likely to be beeped out on free-to-air radio or
> television.
> And if these words exist in French, what are their literal meanings?
I have combed my memory and come up with some. However,
these same words do occur in expressions which, admittedly,
you would not use in any company, but which are not "most
vulgar". Take for instance "enculer les mouches" (to bugger
flies, meaning to split hairs, to nit-pick). "Enculer" is
very vulgar, but "enculer les mouches" is only mildly
vulgar. I have heard "sodomiser les diptères" used instead,
as a send-up of "sanitized speech". Now take the converse:
"pédaler dans la choucroute" (to exert oneself without
getting anywhere). Neither "pédaler" (to pedal) nor
"choucroute" (sauerkraut) are in the slightest bit
vulgar, not even familiar. But the expression itself
is mildly vulgar.
Take "cul" (arse) now. It's vulgar. But there are
lots of expressions with "cul" which are not in the
least vulgar, e.g. cul-de-sac (dead end), cul-d'ange
(a hue of pink), cul-de-lampe (corbel), and so on.
But "l'avoir dans le cul" is vulgar.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Ashley Moore wrote:
Along this line, there are also harmless "fart" words, such as "pet de
lapin," "pet d'âne," "pet-de-nonne," and "pet-en-l'air." Not to mention "pissenlit."
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Miguel Carrasquer
Moore) wrote:
>But I wasn't after words that mean
>'cunt' or 'fuck'. There are other words that mean these things in
>English such as pussy, fanny, screw, shag, that don't have the same
>degree of vulgarity.
>
>What I'm wondering is, is there a collection of words that are
>considered the most vulgar. If you need a metric, may something like
>words that are most likely to be beeped out on free-to-air radio or
>television.
>And if these words exist in French, what are their literal meanings?
There's a study on Polish vulgarisms: Ilona
Biernacka-Ligie,za, "Wulgaryzmy w slangu ml/odiez.y",
Ksztal/cenie Je,zykowe Tom 2(12) [AUW 2336], Wyd. Uniw.
Wrocl/awskiego, Wrocl/aw, 2001. The study provides
statistics on the use and perceived vulgarity of certain
terms among students and teachers of 12 Silesian
high-schools and universities in the year 1996. For
instance (for "cunt"):
most used most vulgar
male students 1. cipa 80.5% 1. pizda 66.7%
2. pizda 80.5% 2. cipa 40.2%
3. dziura 34.5% 3. mal/a 9.2%
female students 1. cipa 81.6% 1. pizda 65.6%
2. pizda 78.2% 2. pipa 52.9%
3. pipa 26.4% 3. cipka 9.2%
male teachers 1. cipa 77.3% 1. pizda 43.2%
2. pizda 73.9% 2. cipa 25%
3. szpara 13.6% 3. pita 2.3%
female teachers 1. cipa 70.5% 1. pizda 61.4%
2. pizda 69.3% 2. cipa 34.1%
3. cipka 12.5% 3. pipa 3.4%
Paul J Kriha
Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:jt0in0phr8qn50qc8...@4ax.com...
> On 21 Oct 2004 17:50:14 -0700, ash...@hotmail.com (Ashley
> Moore) wrote:
>
> >But I wasn't after words that mean
> >'cunt' or 'fuck'. There are other words that mean these things in
> >English such as pussy, fanny, screw, shag, that don't have the same
> >degree of vulgarity.
> >
> >What I'm wondering is, is there a collection of words that are
> >considered the most vulgar. If you need a metric, may something like
> >words that are most likely to be beeped out on free-to-air radio or
> >television.
> >And if these words exist in French, what are their literal meanings?
>
> There's a study on Polish vulgarisms: Ilona
> Biernacka-Ligie,za, "Wulgaryzmy w slangu ml/odiez.y",
Good, grownups don't use vulgarisms. :-)
> Ksztal/cenie Je,zykowe Tom 2(12) [AUW 2336], Wyd. Uniw.
> Wrocl/awskiego, Wrocl/aw, 2001. The study provides
> statistics on the use and perceived vulgarity of certain
> terms among students and teachers of 12 Silesian
> high-schools and universities in the year 1996. For
> instance (for "cunt"):
>
> most used most vulgar
> male students 1. cipa 80.5% 1. pizda 66.7%
> 2. pizda 80.5% 2. cipa 40.2%
> 3. dziura 34.5% 3. mal/a 9.2%
> female students 1. cipa 81.6% 1. pizda 65.6%
> 2. pizda 78.2% 2. pipa 52.9%
> 3. pipa 26.4% 3. cipka 9.2%
> male teachers 1. cipa 77.3% 1. pizda 43.2%
> 2. pizda 73.9% 2. cipa 25%
> 3. szpara 13.6% 3. pita 2.3%
> female teachers 1. cipa 70.5% 1. pizda 61.4%
> 2. pizda 69.3% 2. cipa 34.1%
> 3. cipka 12.5% 3. pipa 3.4%
Does it mean Polish doesn't have "kunda", a word, currently
highly vulgar in some languages and with good old PIE pedigree? :-)
BTW, there is a person at U.of Waterloo in Canada, called
Ziva Kunda. (is it Ziva as in "lively" or "living", I hope not :-)
PJK
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Keith GOERINGER
Jacques Guy <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>cul-d'ange (a hue of pink),
Good lord, don't let the sales or marketing world hear about this, or we
(in the U.S., at any rate) would be inundated with 'angel-ass pink high
gloss exterior paint' and 'angel-ass pink lipstick'. Just in time for
Valentine's Day, no doubt.
Angelically,
Keith
Miguel Carrasquer
<paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:jt0in0phr8qn50qc8...@4ax.com...
>> There's a study on Polish vulgarisms: Ilona
>> Biernacka-Ligie,za, "Wulgaryzmy w slangu ml/odiez.y",
>
>Good, grownups don't use vulgarisms. :-)
>
>> Ksztal/cenie Je,zykowe Tom 2(12) [AUW 2336], Wyd. Uniw.
>> Wrocl/awskiego, Wrocl/aw, 2001. The study provides
>> statistics on the use and perceived vulgarity of certain
>> terms among students and teachers of 12 Silesian
>> high-schools and universities in the year 1996. For
>> instance (for "cunt"):
>>
>> most used most vulgar
>> male students 1. cipa 80.5% 1. pizda 66.7%
>> 2. pizda 80.5% 2. cipa 40.2%
>> 3. dziura 34.5% 3. mal/a 9.2%
>> female students 1. cipa 81.6% 1. pizda 65.6%
>> 2. pizda 78.2% 2. pipa 52.9%
>> 3. pipa 26.4% 3. cipka 9.2%
>> male teachers 1. cipa 77.3% 1. pizda 43.2%
>> 2. pizda 73.9% 2. cipa 25%
>> 3. szpara 13.6% 3. pita 2.3%
>> female teachers 1. cipa 70.5% 1. pizda 61.4%
>> 2. pizda 69.3% 2. cipa 34.1%
>> 3. cipka 12.5% 3. pipa 3.4%
>
>Does it mean Polish doesn't have "kunda", a word, currently
>highly vulgar in some languages and with good old PIE pedigree? :-)
I only gave the top three in each category. The article
itself gives the top 10, and the mentioned terms are brocha,
bz'dziocha, cipa (cipka, cipsko), dziura (dziurka),
dzyndzel, gabrycha, garaz., kapa (kapsko), kuciapka, macica,
mal/a, myszka, otwór, piczka, piera, pipa (pipka), pita,
pizda, pochwa, rura, srom, szczota, szpara (szparka) and
wary.
Joe Fineman
> Take for instance "enculer les mouches" (to bugger flies, meaning to
> split hairs, to nit-pick). "Enculer" is very vulgar, but "enculer
> les mouches" is only mildly vulgar.
Likewise, it seems to me that in English, "full of piss & vinegar" is
less vulgar than "piss" in any other context.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Whatever you live is life. :||
Aidan Kehoe
Ar an tríú lá is fiche de mí Deireadh Fómhair, scríobh Joe Fineman:
> Likewise, it seems to me that in English, "full of piss & vinegar" is
> less vulgar than "piss" in any other context.
When in calling, plain speaking is out;
When the ladies (God bless 'em) are milling about,
You may wet, make water, or empty the glass;
You can powder your nose, or the "johnny" will pass.
It's a drain for the lily, or man about dog
When everyone's drunk, it's condensing the fog;
But sure as the devil, that word with a hiss
It's only in Shakespeare that characters ____.
-- Ogden Nash
That reads to me like "piss" was only becoming taboo when Nash was writing--
I can't imagine him writing a ditty on that word with an "it."
--
Like the early Christians, Marx expected the millennium very soon; like
their successors, his have been disappointed--once more, the world has shown
itself recalcitrant to a tidy formula embodying the hopes of some section of
mankind. (Russell)
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Ar an tríú lá is fiche de mí Deireadh Fómhair, scríobh Joe Fineman:
> > Likewise, it seems to me that in English, "full of piss & vinegar"
> > is less vulgar than "piss" in any other context.
> When in calling, plain speaking is out;
> When the ladies (God bless 'em) are milling about,
> You may wet, make water, or empty the glass;
> You can powder your nose, or the "johnny" will pass.
> It's a drain for the lily, or man about dog
> When everyone's drunk, it's condensing the fog;
> But sure as the devil, that word with a hiss
> It's only in Shakespeare that characters ____.
> -- Ogden Nash
The above stanza is a mangled & butchered version of the original (see below).
> That reads to me like "piss" was only becoming taboo when Nash was
> writing -- I can't imagine him writing a ditty on that word with an "it."
Ogden Nash, my ash. The famous "Ode to Four-Letter Words" has never
been traced to any author. I'm posting below the complete, uncensored
original (as published in _Maledicta 3_ [1979]). Our Foreign Friends
may appreciate all the euphemisms.
Ode to Four-Letter Words
========================
Banish the use of those four-letter words
Whose meanings are never obscure.
The Angles and Saxons, those bawdy old birds,
Were vulgar, obscene, and impure.
But cherish the use of the weak-kneed phrase
That never quite says what you mean;
Far better you stick to your hypocrite ways
Than be vulgar, or coarse, or obscene.
When Nature is calling, plain speaking is out,
When ladies, God bless 'em, are milling about,
You make water, wee-wee, or empty the glass;
You can powder your nose; "Excuse me" may pass;
Shake the dew off the lily; see a man 'bout a dog;
Or when everyone's soused, it's condensing the fog,
But be pleased to consider and remember just this --
That only in Shakespeare do characters piss!
You may speak of a movement, or sit on a seat,
Have a passage, or stool, or simply excrete;
Or say to the others, "I'm going out back,"
Then groan in pure joy in that smelly old shack.
You can go lay a cable, or do number two,
Or sit on the toidy and make a do-do,
But ladies and men who are socially fit
Under no provocation will go take a shit!
When your dinners are hearty with onions and beans,
With garlic and claret and bacon and greens;
Your bowels get so busy distilling a gas
That Nature insists you permit it to pass.
You are very polite, and you try to exhale
Without noise or odor -- you frequently fail --
Expecting a zephyr, you carefully start,
But even a deaf one would call it a fart!
A woman has bosoms, a bust or a breast.
Those lily-white swellings that bulge 'neath her vest;
They are towers of ivory, sheaves of new wheat;
In a moment of passion, ripe apples to eat.
You may speak of her nipples as small rings of fire
With hardly a question of raising her ire;
But by Rabelais's beard, she'll throw fifteen fits
If you speak of them roundly as good honest tits!
It's a cavern of joy you are thinking of now,
A warm, tender field just awaiting the plough
It's a quivering pigeon caressing your hand,
Or that sweet little pussy that makes a man stand.
Or perhaps it's a flower, a grotto, a well,
The hope of the world, or a velvety hell.
But, friend, heed this warning, beware the affront
Of aping a Saxon: don't call it a cunt!
Though a lady repel your advance, she'll be kind
Just as long as you intimate what's on your mind.
You may tell her you're hungry, you need to be swung,
You may ask her to see how your etchings are hung.
You may mention the ashes that need to be hauled;
Put the lid on her sauce-pan, but don't be too bold;
For the moment you're forthright, get ready to duck --
The girl isn't born yet who'll stand for "Let's fuck!"
Banish the use of those four-letter words
Whose meanings are never obscure.
The Angles and Saxons, those bawdy old birds,
Were vulgar, obscene, and impure.
But cherish the use of the weak-kneed phrase
That never quite says what you mean;
Far better you stick to your hypocrite ways
Than be vulgar, or coarse, or obscene.
--- Anonymous
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
Ashley Moore
Interesting. I always used to wonder about cul-de-sac, which in
English is a posh way of saying dead end, but contained a swear word.
I have heard it said before that French doesn't have swear words in
the same way as English, but rather words that can be used in a vulgar
context. Is this true?
For instance, there is no context in which the words "fuck" and "cunt"
can be said without being extremely vulgar.
Does French have any words like this?
Ashley Moore
Jacques Guy
> For instance, there is no context in which the words "fuck" and "cunt"
> can be said without being extremely vulgar.
> Does French have any words like this?
I think so, but... let me give an example. "Cramouille"
("cunt") is, at least in my ears, extremely vulgar,
but the reason is (again to my ear) because it rhymes
with other "vulgar" words (such as "crouille" = Algerian,
"pedzouille" = peasant ), or deprecatory words (such as
"ratatouille" = poor-quality food). So, "cramouille"
is something like "shitty twat".
We're back to square one. The word is not vulgar in itself,
but its deprecatory meaning makes it vulgar. Just like
"pauvre crétin". But neither "pauvre" nor "crétin" are
vulgar.
What struck me when I landed in Australia in 1968 was
the existence of those taboo words. One of the teachers
at the school where I was first employed could not
utter two words without inserting "fucken" in between
I remember a long tale of a fucken rabbid sitting on
a fucken fence and him getting his fucken rifle and
fucken shooting at the fucken rabbit and fucken missing
it and there was the fucken rabbit still fucken sitting
... and so on, and so on. I gathered (don't laugh) that
"fucken" was the irregular past participle of "fuck".
And also gathered (don't blame me) that "fucken" was
a perfectly good Australianism. So one fine Monday,
like every Monday mornings, the loudspeaker summoned
us to the Hall (where the kids would gather and sing
the school song). And I said (proud of my newly learnt
Australian) "Argh! To the fucken Hall again!" The principal's
secretary, who'd been serving us tea and biscuits,
dropped her teapot: "I BEG YOUR PARDON!" she said.
I thought I had mispronounced, so I repeated, carefully
and slowly: "I said: the fucken Hall again". "Karen",
said the phys. ed. teacher, "I'll take care of it". And
he turned to me: "Jim (they called me "Jim", "Jacques"
was too much of a mouthful), I'll explain it to you".
That is when I learnt that "you don't say 'fuck' in the
presence of ladies". Now that was totally alien to me,
this notion of sex-segregated taboo words. We sure
didn't have that in the French I learnt in France when
I was a kid.
Joe Fineman
finely graded. In Laura Fermi's charming memoir, _Atoms in the
Family_, she describes having to learn, as an immigrant, from helpful
neighbors not only which words were vulgar, but which were too vulgar
for children. Of course, no child could be allowed to say "Oh, God!"
-- that would be profanity. But even "golly" was taboo, whereas
"gosh" was acceptable. When I read that, I thought back: I was
brought up by advanced parents, and was allowed to say "golly", but
sure enough, it did still sound rather stronger than "gosh". Don't
ask me why.
||: If you can't pay it back, pay it forward. :||