gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (03/04/86)
[ from net.announce.newusers ] In article <2868@gatech.CSNET> usenet@gatech.UUCP writes: > Original-from: jerry@eagle.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz) > [Most recent change: 24 January 1986 by spaf] > > Frequently Submitted Items > ... > 2. What is the derivation of "foo" as a filler word? > > The favorite story is that it comes from "fubar" which is an > acronym for "fouled up beyond all recognition", which is supposed > to be a military term. (Various forms of this exist, "fouled" > usually being replaced by a stronger word.) "Foo" and "Bar" have > the same derivation. I am tired of this sanitized (and vague) explanation of the origin of "fubar": it really is a military term (that is, popular among enlisted men) created during World War II, and it stands for "fucked up beyond all recognition" (yes, really). "Snafu" has a similar (and probably related) history. Also, I think "filler word" is a bit weak. Somewhere I read "foo" referred to as a "metasyntactic name" -- one which would safely not occur in any existing programing language and could thus be used as a variable name. Even if that is not the context in which "foo" is used, isn't there something more descriptive than "filler word"? References: "Dictionary of American Slang", Harold Wentworth & Stuart Berg Flexner (Crowell, 1967) "I Hear America Talking - An Illustrated History of American Words and Phrases", Stuart Berg Flexner (Touchstone, 1976 [ NOTE: followups are aimed at net.nlang ] -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,seismo,hplabs}!amdahl!gam I speed up to run over unicorns.
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (03/09/86)
In article <2865@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) writes: >[ from net.announce.newusers ] > >In article <2868@gatech.CSNET> usenet@gatech.UUCP writes: > >> Original-from: jerry@eagle.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz) >> [Most recent change: 24 January 1986 by spaf] >> >> Frequently Submitted Items >> ... >> 2. What is the derivation of "foo" as a filler word? >> >> The favorite story is that it comes from "fubar" which is an >> acronym for "fouled up beyond all recognition", which is supposed >> to be a military term. (Various forms of this exist, "fouled" >> usually being replaced by a stronger word.) "Foo" and "Bar" have >> the same derivation. > >I am tired of this sanitized (and vague) explanation of the origin >of "fubar": it really is a military term (that is, popular among >enlisted men) created during World War II, and it stands for >"fucked up beyond all recognition" (yes, really). "Snafu" >has a similar (and probably related) history. What's your beef, Gordon. Here in net.nlang we write any words we need to discuss, since we're being "clinical" about it (also a matter of use vs mention), and in net.jokes it's open house, etc., but in net.announce.newusers he was using a little discretion. And after all, he _did_ say that "fouled" is usually replaced by a stronger word, so nobody is being kept from figuring out what's going on. I do agree with you that he puts it somewhat backwards, and the parenthetical remark might better read something like this: "(Here "fouled" stands in for the stronger word that is usually understood.)" But I can't agree if you mean that there's something dishonest or otherwise wrong with his not actually writing "fucked up". There's no question on your secondary point: you're right, the origin of "fubar" and "snafu" are well documented, and he doesn really need to hedge his assertion. -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar